Public Bill Committee

[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]

Clause 130

Criteria for recognition

Amendment moved (this day): 222, in clause 130, page 75, line 22, after consult, insert recognised awarding bodies and.(Mr. Laws.)

Joan Humble: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following: amendment 224, in clause 137, page 78, line 8, after consult, insert
relevant recognised awarding bodies and.
Amendment 199, in clause 137, page 78, line 9, at end add
and must include in such consultations representatives of the higher education sector and representatives of business..
Amendment 225, in clause 140, page 80, line 7, after consult, insert
relevant recognised awarding bodies and.

David Laws: I welcome you back to the Committee, Mrs. Humble, as I do members of the Committeewell, certainly Opposition members of the Committee; unfortunately, there are still only two hon. Members on the Labour Benches.
Sometimes it feels as though we are slaving away without any attention from the outside world being paid to our deliberations. I was therefore particularly pleased that our discussions this morning attracted widespread media attention under the headline Labour Loses Key Committee Votes, with a lovely photograph of the hon. Member for Brent, South at the top of the article.
I said this morning that there is every reason for the Government to accept amendment 222, to invite Ofqual to ensure that recognised awarding bodies are consulted as part of the processes laid down in the clause. However, if the Minister is not willing to accept the amendment, perhaps she will confirm and clarify that Ofqual will be expected to consult in such a way with the recognised awarding bodies.

Nick Gibb: Clause 137 is about the criteria for the accreditation of qualifications. With last weeks news that Cambridge university will now be looking to distinguish bright pupils by accepting the new A* A-level grade, it shows just how far school qualifications have gone awry. It seems that they are no longer used for businesses or universities. Only last year, Sir Richard Sykes, the rector of Imperial college, mooted the idea of an entrance exam, stating:
We are doing this not because we dont believe in A levels, but we cant use the A level any more as a discriminator factor.
He went on to say that he believes in many aspects of the current qualifications system but cannot ignore the weight of evidence that points to one fundamental truththat A-levels are no longer created with the needs of business and higher education in mind.
The aim of the amendment is to halt the trend and reverse the situation in which a 2008 CBI survey found that 40 per cent. of companies had serious concerns about the literacy and numeracy of their employees. Through open and honest consultation with employers and those in higher education, we can begin to ensure that the criteria for accreditation prioritises literacy and numeracy as well as knowledge, concept and ideas in our qualifications. Currently, the qualifications system seems to be falling far short of that.
We have already heard about the worrying statistics from the Royal Society of Chemistry, which said that teenagers who get 35 per cent. of the answers correct when faced with todays examination papers would only have got 15 per cent. correct if they were dealing with papers from the 1960s.
Universities and employers have a proper and very vital interest in driving up standards. A 2008 Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development survey found that 90 per cent. of companies expected their skill needs to grow, with 36 per cent. requiring high-level skills. At a time when our economy is in deep peril, the development of higher skills is at an all-time premium. We cannot afford to fail our students, our employers or our universities. We must ensure that the qualifications that are the route out of our problems are a collaborative venture built with the best interests of all those parties at heart. It is the purpose of amendment 199 to ensure that there is consultation with the users of qualifications, higher education and employers.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Clauses 130, 137 and 140 give Ofqual the duties to publish criteria for the recognition of awarding bodies, the accreditation of qualifications and the assignment of guided learning hours to the relevant qualification. In each case, Ofqual must consult such persons as it considers appropriate before setting or revising the criteria. The amendments would change that by specifying certain persons whom Ofqual must consult. There is no need to specify that in the Bill because Ofqual will already have to do it.
Amendments 222, 224 and 225 would require Ofqual to consult recognised awarding bodies before changing their criteria for recognition, for accreditation and for guided learning hours. Of course Ofqual will do that. No regulator is going to ignore the community it regulates in a consultation exercise. If it helps the hon. Member for Yeovil, I will put it on the record that I expect Ofqual to consult those bodies. There is nothing to be gained by specifying that in legislation.
Amendment 199 is a variant on the same theme. It would require Ofqual to consult representatives of the higher education sector and business. Clause 126 sets out various general duties for Ofqual. Paragraphs (d) and (e) of subsection (2) require Ofqual to have regard to the reasonable requirements of those sectors when performing its functions. Paragraph (f) requires Ofqual to have regard to information from sector skills councils. Amendment 199 would not have a significant practical effect because Ofqual will have to focus on the needs of higher education and business in all it does. On that basis, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for those comments. She has given the clarification that we wanted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 130, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 131

General conditions of recognition

Amendments made: 443, in clause 131, page 75, line 30, at end insert
(c) recognition in respect of credits in respect of different components of qualifications or different descriptions of components of qualifications..

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 442.

Amendment 295, in clause 131, page 75, line 31, leave out from time to time.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 290.

Clause 131, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 133

Fee capping conditions: supplementary

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move amendment 444, in clause 133, page 76, line 31, leave out a person and insert 
(i) an individual.

This amendment and amendment 445 clarify that review arrangements made under clause 133 may provide for decisions on a review to be made either by an individual who is not a member of Ofqual or its staff or by a body none of whose members is such a person.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 445, 483 and 484.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: These drafting amendments clarify that an independent review of Ofquals decision to cap fees or withdraw recognition may be carried out by an individual or a body. The wording in the Bill states that it must be
a person other than a member of Ofqual or Ofquals staff,
which suggests that only an individual can carry out the review. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the Committee will agree to the amendments.

Nick Gibb: The explanatory statement on amendments 444 and 445 clarifies that
review arrangements made under clause 133 may provide for decisions on a review to be made either by an individual who is not a member of Ofqual or its staff or by a body none of whose members is such a person.
It appears that the essence of the amendment is to give bodies outside Ofqual the power to review. Will the Minister explain why that power is necessary?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The intention of the amendment is merely to clarify that the review may be done by a body or an individual. Will the hon. Gentleman clarify his point?

Nick Gibb: My concern is that it is a body or an individual who is not a member of Ofqual. It seems that that is the driver behind the amendment, rather than the distinction between a body and an individual.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The original clause says that it
may require or permit that decision to be made by a person other than a member of Ofqual or Ofquals staff.
The amendment merely adds that that could be a body rather than an individual person. The purpose of the original clause was to clarify the independence of Ofqual; the amendment merely states that it is either an individual or a body.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: 445, in clause 133, page 76, line 32, at end insert , or
(ii) a body none of whose members is a member of Ofqual or Ofquals staff..

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 444.
Amendment 296, in clause 133, page 76, line 39, leave out from time to time.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 290.

Clause 133, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 134

Entry and inspection conditions: supplementary

Amendment made: 446, in clause 134, page 77, line 6, leave out from require to end of line 8 and insert
an authorised person to be given permission to do anything that a person authorised by a provision of Part 1 of the Education Act 2005 (c. 18) to inspect documents could do by virtue of section 58 of that Act (computer records)..(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

This amendment clarifies that Ofqual may set an entry and inspection condition that allows a person authorised by Ofqual to inspect and copy electronic records in the same way as a person would be able to do if authorised under section 58 of the Education Act 2005.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: This provision applies conditions to Ofqual for the entry into and inspection of premises of, what I presume, are the awarding bodies. That seems to be a very heavy power. We are not talking about tax revenue or potential financial fraud; we are merely dealing with the quality of exams. Will the Minister explain to the Committee, before we nod the clause through, the reasons behind requiring this power? I know that it will refer to powers that already exist in the Education Act 2005. None the less, if we are going to extend that powereven if this provision applies conditions to the use of itit is important that the Committee is aware that that power exists for Ofqual and is being given to the new Ofqual. As such, we need to know why the Government feel that the power is necessary.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Bill does not give Ofqual the right to entry in the sense of the right to kick down doors; that would be disproportionate and unwarranted. However, there may be circumstances where it will be necessary. The test will be that of necessity, not whether it is the most convenient way for Ofqual to gather information. For Ofqual to enter an awarding bodys premises to check on standards or to gather information about the potential capping of feesif, for example, it needs to look through an awarding bodys financial files to consider whether to cap feeswe would normally expect Ofqual to agree the arrangements for such a visit with the awarding body. However, in the case of a challenge, the provisions leave no doubt at all that it is Parliaments intention, in setting up Ofqual, that it should be able to enter premises for specified purposes. We have discussed the safeguards on the use of the powerfor example, the need for reasonable notice of a visit and the need to include, in its qualifications regulatory framework, how it will perform its functions under an entry and inspection condition.

Charles Walker: I share my hon. Friends concerns that the powers are excessive. Will it be possible for Ofqual to request that the information is provided via the post, or is faxed or e-mailed? Why does it need to go into premises to look through files? It suggests that the qualifying bodies are trying to cover something up.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I made the point that the test is one of necessity, not whether it is the most convenient thing to do. Of course we would expect Ofqual to begin by requesting information by post. There may be lots of documents to look at and it may not be appropriate to deliver all the documents to Ofqual. It may therefore be appropriate for Ofqual to have such a power, and we therefore wish it to have the power as a backstop.

Nick Gibb: I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne. I still do not understand why the power to enter premises is necessary, given that the Bill gives Ofqual a fee-capping power, meaning that if Ofqual is unhappy about the quality of information on costs provided by the awarding bodies, it has the ultimate weapon of capping the fees charged to schools and colleges for the qualifications. So I do not see the need for Ofqual to enter premises and go through the accounts detailing the costs of providing the qualifications. If Ofqual is unhappy with the quality of information provided, it has that backstop power, which is far more reasonable than the draconian power proposed. We should be very careful about awarding powers of entry to governmental bodies, as that goes against one of the fundamental freedoms that the House was established to protect. I am still not convinced that the power is necessary, given the task with which Ofqual is charged.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I merely point out that the interim Ofqual already has that powerwe are not adding anything. We all hope that the power never need be used, but it is important that it is in Ofquals toolkit. We have improved safeguards and are putting safeguards around the existing use of powers. We spoke earlier about how the qualifications regulatory framework, which will be consulted on, will regulate how Ofqual functions under this entry and inspection condition, to ensure that those safeguards are there.

Charles Walker: I hope that it never comes to a total breakdown in communication between Ofqual and the bodies that it regulates. However, what would happen if the company or awarding body said, No, we are not going to give you permission to enter our premises because we think that that is excessive. We have provided the information we feel you need, so we are going to say no to your request on this occasion?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Presumably that would be tested in the courts, against the framework in the Bill regarding how the power can be used. Ofquals overarching power to direct is enforceable in the courts.

Graham Stuart: Will the Minister give an example of when that could happen? I cannot see how it could. We are not talking about a privatised monopoly. With some of the utility companies, great powers are needed to prevent them from taking advantage of their monopoly position, but we have a competitive market among qualifications bodies and we hope that a greater diversity of qualifications will become available. This seems more like something that the Stasi would require, not a regulator of standards which has all sorts of other powers of registration, fee setting and so on.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I can only refer the hon. Gentleman back to my previous remarks. We want Ofqual to be a regulator with the powers that it needs. The interim Ofqual has those powers. We are restricting the powers by introducing more safeguards, but we need them as a backstop.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 134, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 135

Qualifications subject to the accreditation requirement

Amendment made: 297, in clause 135, page 77, line 20, leave out from time to time.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 290.

Clause 135, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 136

Accreditation

Amendments made: 447, in clause 136, page 77, line 30, leave out from beginning to first the in line 34 and insert
(1) Where a qualification is subject to the accreditation requirement Ofqual must accredit a particular form of the qualification if
(a) that form of the qualification has been submitted for accreditation by a recognised body which is recognised in respect of the qualification, and
(b) that form of.

This amendment ensures the function of accrediting qualifications applies to each form of a qualification which requires accreditation rather than the qualification as a whole. The effect is that an awarding body must obtain accreditation for each form of such a qualification which it proposes to award or authenticate.
Amendment 448, in clause 136, page 77, line 35, at end insert
( ) Ofqual may not accredit a form of a qualification if the requirements set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) are not met in respect of that form of the qualification.
( ) An accreditation under this section has effect from such date as Ofqual may specify..

This amendment clarifies that Ofqual must accredit a form of a qualification if it meets the relevant requirements, but not otherwise; and that it is for Ofqual to specify the date on which an accreditation comes into force (which may be later than the decision to accredit).
Amendment 449, in clause 136, page 77, line 36, leave out the accreditation of a qualification and insert accreditation under this section.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 447. This amendment is consequent on that amendment.

Clause 136, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 137

Criteria for accreditation

Amendments made: 450, in clause 137, page 78, line 2, leave out from for to end of line 3 and insert accreditation under section 136..

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 447. This amendment is consequent on that amendment.
Amendment 298, in clause 137, page 78, line 6, leave out from time to time.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 290.
Amendment 451, in clause 137, page 78, line 9, at end add
(6) If Ofqual revises the criteria under this section which are applicable to a form of a qualification which is accredited under section 136, the accreditation ceases to have effect on the date specified by Ofqual.
(7) Ofqual may vary the date specified under subsection (6) at any time before the date.
(8) Ofqual may determine that subsection (6) does not apply in relation to a specified revision.
(9) Ofqual must publish a determination made under subsection (8).
(10) Ofqual may make saving or transitional provision in connection with the accreditation of a form of a qualification ceasing to have effect under subsection (6)..(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

This amendment provides that if Ofqual revises accreditation criteria applicable to a form of a qualification which has been accredited, that accreditation ceases on a date specified by Ofqual, unless Ofqual determines otherwise. Ofqual may make saving or transitional provision about a form of qualification ceasing to be accredited;

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 383, in clause 137, page 78, line 9, at end add
(6) In establishing accreditation criteria for qualifications, Ofqual must have regard to the desirability of raising standards whenever possible..
Clause 137 requires Ofqual to set out the criteria it will use for accrediting qualifications. It is very clearly set out and understandable. The confusion lies with the explanatory note which states:
The criteria for accreditation are a threshold requirement - a recognised body must meet these criteria before it may award or authenticate a qualification
That is clear enough so far. But then it says:
Once that threshold requirement is met, satisfying the criteria is not as such an ongoing requirement of the recognised body. However, Ofqual will be able to mirror all relevant criteria in general or specific conditions in order to ensure continued compliance by the recognised body with the criteria.
I have no idea what that means. Perhaps the Minister could explain.
Amendment 383 inserts an additional requirement for Ofqual when setting the criteria. That is a requirement to raise standards. This reflects concerns already referred to when Ofqual required AQA to lower its grade boundary to be consistent with the awarding bodies. The amendment would prevent such an approach and require Ofqual to require the other awarding bodies to raise their grade boundaries to the position of the board with the highest level.
The intention behind the amendment is to introduce a virtuous circle of ever-rising exam standards instead of the current vicious circle of declining standards. As Dr. Mike Cresswell, the director-general of AQA, said in an interview with The Times in October 2008:
The awarding bodies compete for entries. They dont compete on standards.
It is that element of market failure that I believe Ofqual must compensate for. To overcome the exam boards incentive to lower standards in order to raise the quantity of entries, and thus their income, Ofqual needs an explicit duty in the Bill to raise standards.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I shall first try to explain to the hon. Gentleman the details in the explanatory notes. At the beginning, the criteria are set for a qualification. They could be criteria a, b and c. The application would come from an awarding body and Ofqual would look at those criteria. In the ongoing life of a qualification, the power exists to set conditions and those conditions can refer back to the criteria in the original accreditation. I suppose an analogy is that criteria involve getting on the bus; the conditions involve staying on it. That is the difference between the criteria and the conditions.
Amendment 383 would require Ofqual to have regard to the desirability of raising standards. But we must be careful to distinguish between two meanings of the word standards here. If we mean standards of assessment, or the difficulty of a qualification, then Ofquals duty is to make sure that the standard is consistent over time, and not to raise it, because that would disadvantage previous years learners. But if we means standards of performance, or the achievements of students, that is not a matter for Ofqual. It is a policy ambition of Government to raise standards of performance, and part of Ofquals role is to ensure that, where qualifications and assessments are used to measure that, this is being done consistently. On that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful for that very clear explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

David Laws: Although I do not want to detain the Committee, we have some concerns about clause 137, as amended by Government amendment 451, which we agreed on Tuesday. One of the awarding bodies, Cambridge Assessment, has drawn to our attention a concern about that. According to the amendments explanatory statement:
This amendment provides that if Ofqual revises accreditation criteria applicable to a form of a qualification which has been accredited, that accreditation ceases on a date specified by Ofqual, unless Ofqual determines otherwise. Ofqual may make saving or transitional provision about a form of qualification ceasing to be accredited.
The amendment that we originally put forward, which was too late to be taken into account and set against Government amendment 451, would have built into the Bill a safety mechanism in relation to the danger that we will effectively have a new retrospective element for accredited qualifications. Clearly, the Government have recognised that risk and the fact that this is controversial, which is why they have made the saving or transitional provision in subsection (10), as set out in amendment 451.
However, that amendmentand therefore the Bill as it standsputs no obligation on Ofqual to have that delay. It states that Ofqual may use the delay mechanism, for which no specific time period has been fixed. That could be damaging to the awarding authorities, with regard to having some kind of stability, and to candidates on the courses in question who could suddenly be left high and dry if the qualifications for which they are studying are no longer regarded as having proper academic status.
Cambridge Assessment told us in a briefing note:
In addition, even having this clause will probably encourage awarding bodies to add in a risk premium to the price of qualifications that they suspect Ofqual, or indeed the Minister, given his power to tell Ofqual to take note of policy, wants to axe, thus adding to the costs to the public purse.
In the existing circumstances, Ofqual could either not renew accreditation after the term of years, or issue the new accreditation criteria and the new specifications in the Bill, so that the previous versions would wither on the vine. That seems to be a more sensible way of dealing with circumstances in which an existing accredited qualification is no longer suitable.
On what occasion does the Minister envisage an emergency retrospective date being necessary to stop a qualification, and does she have any objection in principle to changing the wording in subsection (10) so as to place a duty on Ofqual to allow for that transitional period, rather than making that discretionary?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I do not want to repeat the debate on amendment 451, but the idea is for Ofqual to manage revisions in an orderly way, and that is how the arrangements are intended to work. In reply to the hon. Gentlemans concerns, one safeguard is that Ofqual will have a general duty to have regard to the needs of learners, and the other is its general public law duty to act reasonably. Given the way that we have set up Ofqual, how it manages that will be up to it, and it is accountable to Parliament.

David Laws: I had hoped to intervene on the Minister, but her speech was rather shorter than I expected. She did not reassure me; I am unclear under what circumstances Ofqual would decide not to make the saving or transitional provision in relation to accreditation. We need to know under what circumstances Ofqual would decide not to grant the provision, given the concerns clearly expressed by Cambridge Assessment and some of the other awarding bodies.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the only reason that I can think of that Ofqual would not make such a saving or transitional provision is if it was in the interests of the learners not to do so, because that is its duty.

David Laws: I am still not convinced that the Government have got this right. I think that this ought to be a duty. To make such important changes that could be destabilising to learners on such courses as well as to the accrediting bodies is unfair, and for that reason I want to divide the Committee.

Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 2.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause 137, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Jim Knight: On a point of order, Mrs. Humble. Is it in order for a member of the Committee to be talking on the telephone while voting?

Joan Humble: The Minister has anticipated a point that I was going to make from the Chair. I remind all Members, but especially the hon. Member for Leominster, that they should not use mobile phones in the Committee and certainly not during a Division. [Hon. Members: He is not here.] I am sure that the message will get to him.

Clause 138

Power of secretary of state to determine minimum requirements

David Laws: I beg to move amendment 532, in clause 138, page 78, line 12, after may, insert in exceptional circumstances.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 533, in clause 138, page 78, line 22, leave out from must to end of line 23 and insert
agree with Ofqual the circumstances in which he can use the power conferred by subsection (1), and publish the terms of this agreement..
Government amendments 453 and 454.
Amendment 233, in clause 138, page 78, line 23, at end insert
(4A) Ofqual shall include it its annual report a copy of the publication in subsection (4) and how it responded to the determination..
Government amendments 455 and 456
Amendment 141, in clause 138, page 78, line 27, at end add
(5A) Ofqual must set a minimum requirement in respect of an academic qualification relating to the knowledge a person must demonstrate in order to obtain the qualification or qualifications in question..
Government amendment 458.
Amendment 5, in clause 138, page 78, line 31, at end insert
(7) The Secretary of State must not make a determination under subsection (1) relating to the grading or assessment of qualifications..

David Laws: It is good to have such active participation from Ministers in the debate and to see so many Labour Members present now. Clearly, they are at their best after the lunch break. We now move on to an extremely important clause. If you will allow me, Mrs. Humble, I will start with a quiz for those Committee members who are here. I should like them to tell methey should feel free to intervene if they wishthe significance of the following volumes. I would particularly expect the Minister for Schools and Learners to know the answer. The volumes are Enid Blytons Famous Five adventures, Malcolm Savilles Lone Pine detective stories, The Wind in the Willows, Swallows and Amazons by Arthur Ransome and, finally, a book called Keeping Pet Chickens.

Charles Walker: Could it be that those books have been banned from the reading list? Am I warm?

David Laws: Not only have those books not been banned from the reading list, but they are the favourite books of the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families; he picked them out in a recent selection. He has apparently been reading one of those titles to children in schools, so I hope that it is not banned.
I refer to those books because, under clause 138, they could find their way into every English examination in the land. They could be a compulsory part of the GCSE English examinations that every child in the country must sit. Under the clause, the Secretary of State is taking extraordinary powersnew powers, as has been confirmed in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poolethat will allow the Government to dictate to examination boards what precise books they will examine youngsters on and what parts of history must be included in history examinations.
The clause has drawn a lot of attention from the educational media and the wider media. The books that I mentioned at the beginning of my comments were drawn to my attention by a leader article in no less than The Times, which published an editorial on the subject on 20 March. The feature was titled Set texts, with the subtitle: It is not the Governments job to hand out reading lists. It was not only The Times that covered the matter. As well as the The Daily Telegraph, there was a leader article in no less a paper than the Daily Express under the headline Brainwashing wont work, which concluded that only the slowest of learners will fail to appreciate that the Secretary of States control freakery and belief in centralised planning are the mark of a crackpot and not a statesman. Those are not my words but those of the Daily Express.
The significance of the clause is set out not only in the exchanges that we had in the evidence sessions a couple of weeks ago, but in the explanatory notes. It is worth reminding ourselves what those explanatory notes say about the clause. I assume, Mrs. Humble, that because my general criticisms of the clause are embedded in the amendments, you will not allow a separate stand part debate on the clause. The explanatory notes say:
This clause allows the Secretary of State to determine the minimum requirements in respect of skills, knowledge, or understanding that someone must be able to demonstrate to gain a particular qualification or type of qualification.
It goes on, very helpfully, to give an example:
For example, it could be used to ensure that the content of GCSEs properly reflects the... Key State 4 Programmes of Study, such as specifying which authors works needed to be studied for someone to gain a GCSE in English.
It goes on to say:
The Government intends that this power would be used only in exceptional circumstances.
However, none of the guarantees in relation to that, or to intervention on grading or assessment, are embedded in the Bill.

Graham Stuart: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that more and more legislation is couched in the terms that powers given to various Secretaries of State will be used only in exceptional circumstances. Those who find themselves on the receiving end of the use of such powerswhether those who are spied on by local authorities, or Members of Parliament in their officesknow only too well that exceptional powers tend to be used by those who are granted them.

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right. When those exceptional circumstances are not even contained in the Bill, we have to ask whether such assurances are really worth anything. Such concerns have clearly not only been expressed in the media and Parliament; they are also concerns that Ofqual has shared at some point in time. A section of the notes that Kathleen Tattersall, the chair of Ofqual, sent to members of the Committee before our evidence session touched on the clause. It said that her officials have had detailed discussions with DCSFone always knows when one hears the phrase detailed discussion that a concern lies at the root of the issueabout the Secretary of States power to determine minimum requirements in relation to certain qualifications, as set out in clause 138, and that Ofqual must be sure therefore that the Secretary of States powers do not undermine its ability to act independently, either in reality or in the perception of the public and other stakeholders.
Ofqual has been concerned about the issue, and it has discussed it not only with members of the Committee, but with the Secretary of State himself. There was an exchange of letters between Kathleen Tattersall and the Secretary of State on 10 February. When such concerns require a public exchange of correspondence, there clearly are serious concerns. Our concern is that they have not yet been resolved.
We also had some exchanges on the issue in our evidence session on 10 March. The Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North was cross-questioned on the matter. She cited Shakespeare as an example of the type of direction that the Secretary of State might give on what should be contained in an English examination. Although she said that in relation to history, I assume that she meant that Shakespeare was important in our history, but that he should be embedded in the English examination.
I wonder whether the Minister would care to let us know in her comments later whether she can think of any other examples in the English and, perhaps as interestingly, in the history examinations where the Government think that particular authors or events in history are so important that they should be an obligation for qualifications that cover those subjects.
We also had some uncertainty from Ministers over the significance of the powers in the clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole asked the Minister whether the powers in the Bill were new. With great frankness, she admitted:
We do not know and we are going to find out.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2009; c. 171, Q405.]
It did not take long before she was true to her word, and she did find out. She wrote a letter to my hon. Friend, dated 14 March 2009, confirming that there is currently no explicit statutory power to determine such matters and that such powers may exist in some way through the back door. The letter cheekily suggests in paragraph 4 that the effect of clause 138 is to limit, in practice, the powers of intervention that Ministers have. How it can do that while giving the Secretary of State an extensive power that he does not possess at the moment is an interesting question, to which we shall no doubt hear a response from the Minister in a minute.
I suppose that I could save until later my response to what I expect the Minister to say, but it may be better to add to my comments at this stage by anticipating some of the arguments that she is likely to deploy. She will undoubtedly talk about getting the balance right between public policy and interfering with examinations and give us many assurances about the circumstances in which the powers will be used. We need to remind her that the Government already have a great deal of power to influence what is taught in schools.
The national curriculum is an inordinately long document with a great deal of specificity, particularly by comparison with the expectations in the past 100 years about the degree to which Governments would try to meddle in what is taught in our schools. There will also be the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, which we will debate under part 8, the funding regime and the Joint Advisory Committee for Qualifications Approval, which we will also talk about later and which advises the Secretary of State and allows him to withhold the funding of particular qualifications.
Our view, therefore, is that the power would be needed only if the Secretary of State was determined to promote his own pet subjects in the history curriculum or his own pet reading list in the English curriculum, for example. We question whether it is right to give politicians the power to prescribe in such detail what should be taught in our schools and what should be part of the qualifications that every young person may need to have.
There is a risk that we will give excessive powers to Here today, gone tomorrow politicians to put all sorts of nonsense on reading lists and decide that bits of history are in fashion and then out of fashion. There is also a risk that Secretaries of State and other Education Ministers will feel obliged to react to the latest newspaper headlines, or, perhaps more likely, to garner newspaper headlines by introducing new obligations through the examinations system, many of which might be counter-productive in terms of allowing schools and colleges to do their job and respond to the needs of their pupils. It also opens up the potential for much lobbying from all sorts of groups familiar to many hon. Members to have their own pet subjects put into the national curriculum or the qualifications that many or all youngsters have to have. The split between subject and design criteria is not nearly as simple as many Ministers and the Secretary of State may think. For example, by promoting particular subject criteria, we directly affect the design criteria and vice versa.
We therefore may want to divide the Committee on whether the clause should be in the Bill at all. We have tabled a number of amendments532, 533 and 5which I am going to speak to now. Amendment 532 came from our discussions with Cambridge Assessment, one of the accrediting bodies. It does not change the Governments intentions but clarifies the restrictions on the role of the Secretary of State by including in the Bill the undertaking about the power being used only in exceptional circumstances that is in the explanatory notes.
Amendment 533 does not change what the Government appear to want to have in the Bill. It clarifies the restrictions on the role of the Secretary of State in relation to having to
agree with Ofqual the circumstances in which he can use the power conferred by subsection (1).
Finally, amendment 5 does not seek to clarify what the Government claim are their intentions in the Bill through the explanatory notes. It clarifies the restrictions on the role of the Secretary of State by making it clear that
The Secretary of State must not make a determination under subsection (1) relating to the grading or assessment of qualifications.
An awful lot has been put in the Bill that is of low importance and that probably should not be there. I gave an example the other day of the obligations that were being placed on Ofqual to review the structure of its committees every few yearsa degree of prescription that seems completely unnecessary. If such obligations and details are in the Bill, the safeguards contained in the explanatory notes must at least be included to make clear the safeguards that the Government recognise. That would deal with some of our concerns, although whether the powers given in clause 138 have any place in the Bill or in a country where we would not expect elected politicians to dictate to such an extent to our schools and pupils is quite another matter.

Nick Gibb: If we look at any opinion poll over the past 20 years that lists the public issues of most concern, education is rarely out of the top three. There are genuine reasons for that concern: Ofsted reports, for example, that 43 per cent. of secondary schools are not good enough or that one in five 11-year-olds leave primary school still struggling with literacy.
At the same time, the curriculum has been watered down and the rigour and content of exams diminished. Much of that is driven by ideology, though not always that of the Minister and her colleagues. Often, it is driven by a child-centred John Dewey-type ideology, the dominant orthodoxy of those who have reached prominent positions in the educational establishment. The public are hugely anxious about such trends. I know of many left-of-centre journalists who, against their own principles, have taken their children out of the state sector because of such concerns. That is fine for those who can afford it, but for most people the state sector is the only option, hence peoples concerns in the opinion polls.
Elected politicians need to respond to those concerns, and need to be able to respond. We all received the letter from the Minister which, with the usual rigour and attention to detail that we have come to expect from those involved in the Committee, was dated 23 March 2009I know it has been a long Committee, but not quite that long.

Mary Creagh: Is that how long the hon. Gentleman will keep us here?

Nick Gibb: Perhaps.
Of course we want Ofqual to be an independent regulator. I have already set out my concerns about whether it will be independent of those who are responsible for the problems with todays educational system and who seem determined to create more problemsthose in the educational establishment who put ideology ahead of evidence of what works. We want Ofqual to be independent from ministerial interference on issues such as grade boundaries, which has always been the position of the QCA regulatory division, which would never countenance such interference. I do not believe that there ever has been such interference, either from this Government or previous Governments, but Ministers must have reserve powers to set minimum standards. In a democracy, when education is of such concern to the public, we cannot remove from Ministers every lever to effect change that would raise standards.

David Laws: My understanding of the hon. Gentlemans policy, which we were discussing earlier, is that the Conservative party is happy for good-quality state-funded schools to opt out of the national curriculum. How is that consistent with saying that there should be this degree of central direction?

Nick Gibb: When schools opt out of a system, in a system that has plenty of surplus places and makes it easier for new schools to enter into the state sectoras set out in our policy Green Paper, Raising the bar, closing the gapthere would be genuine choice to allow parents to choose a school. The independent schools and independent sector are not subject to the national curriculum and, notwithstanding that, the reason that they still provide high-quality educationworld class in the majority of independent schoolsis because the market forces them to provide the high-quality education that parents want.
Our state education system has to date been a state-provided system that is not responsive to the needs of parents. It has no need to be. There are few surplus places and one has to go to ones local school, or a school to which one is allocatedin theory one has a choice, but in practice most parents do not have a genuine choice of school. It is therefore important, under the current system, that schools provide a curriculum and exam system that respond to the needs of parents.
It is the role of the state to replicate the market through things such as the national curriculum. That does not mean that we want to regulate and provide detail down to the last dot and comma, but national politicians have a responsibility to ensure that public services that are directly provided by the state respond as closely as possible to the needs of parents. The only methodology through which parents can exercise such a power at present is our elected democratic process.

David Laws: May I explore the hon. Gentlemans argument further? Is he saying that he is happy for good quality state-funded schools not to have to teach Shakespeare, for example, which is an obligation under the national curriculum at present, and that such schools should not be obliged to offer qualifications that would include Shakespeare? Does he believe that such things should be left to the market and to preference?

Nick Gibb: No, I do not take that view. The state has a very important role to play in providing examinations, and that is why we agree with the power under clause 138 for the Secretary of State to set minimum standards for assessments. If schools do not want to take up the examinations or assessments provided by the state, they will be able to turn to the marketplace. That is why the independent sector is not required to set GCSEs for schools.
We do not currently have a genuine marketplace within the state sector for school provision. If we get to a position where parents have a genuine choiceI mean a genuine choice, not a theoretical oneof schools, it would be possible to relax the system, because, given what we know from opinion polls about what parents want from schools, they would not choose a school that does not teach Shakespeare or does not provide exams.

David Laws: I understand the hon. Gentlemans argument about having a proper market and choice. He is saying that, even though he wants the Secretary of State to have the power outlined in clause 138 to set minimum standardsin underperforming schools perhaps, or at least until there is a markethe is willing for state-funded schools not to be obliged to teach particular authors, including Shakespeare, or to insist that students be examined on such authors through GCSEs and other qualifications.

Nick Gibb: The hon. Gentleman talks about a theoretical position that I hope will be reached where parents have a genuine choice of schools for their children. In such circumstances, they should be able to choose. If they want a very progressive education for their children that does not require academic rigour and study, there is a case for allowing that under a system in which they can genuinely choose. We are not currently in such a position, so we need to ensure that our exam system is rigorous and has minimum standards. That is why we agree with the power that the clause gives to the Secretary of State to determine minimum requirements. The Bill does not determine maximum requirements, only minimum ones.
According to the explanatory notes, the Secretary of States power will be used only in exceptional circumstances and it
does not allow the Secretary of State to make determinations relating to parts of the qualification such as grading or assessment. Such matters remain solely for Ofqual to determine.
The notes go on to state:
The Secretary of State intends to put in place a Memorandum of Understanding with Ofqual about the use of this power.
Those issues were reiterated in the Under-Secretarys letter of 14 March 2009 to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, to which the hon. Member for Yeovil also referred. The fourth paragraph of that letter states that the effect of clause 138 is in practice to limit the role of Ministers by setting out what Ministers can determinethe skills, knowledge or understanding which someone must demonstrate in order to obtain a specified qualification. It says that Ministers will not be able to decide, for example, on grading, structures, assessment methods or how standards will be maintained, and that they may express a view on these things from their policy perspective, but the final decisions will be for Ofqual.
We agree with that, but I understand the reasons behind the hon. Gentlemans amendments, particularly amendment 5, and his general concerns, especially given that the Government are more concerned about the message than genuine reform and higher standardsnothing delivers a better message than exam results rising year on year. Although we do not support amendment 5, because I do not believe that Ministers have ever sought to interfere with grade boundaries, absolute transparency will be necessary when Ministers use the power in clause 138.
Amendment 233 would require Ofqual to publish in its annual report each of the determinations published under clause 138(4), together with a note setting out how it had responded. There should be no problem with a Secretary of State, acting in good faith and trying to ensure rising standards, being open in the use of this power. Giving that determination maximum transparency and accountability would strengthen Ofquals independence. Amendment 141, which deals with clause 138 as well, would require Ofqual to set a minimum requirement of knowledge that must be learned before the qualification can be awarded. That returns to our earlier debate about knowledge versus skills. However, it also relates to public concern about the reduced quality of knowledge required to pass GCSEs. Last November, in an article in The Sunday Telegraph, Terence Kealey wrote:
Would you like a GCSE in science? Don't worry, you may not need to know much science actually to get one. Last Monday, Graham Stuart, the Tory MP for Beverley and Holderness, read out to the Commons Select Committee for Children, Schools and Families a question from a recent GCSE science paper: A nuclear power station is to be built. (1) It will provide more employment in the area. But (2) any release of radioactive material would be very dangerous. Which of these two statements argues in favour of siting the nuclear power station in the area?
Mr Stuart then asked if the department is really sure that we are providing pupils with a rigorous scientific understanding? But he was answered by Jim Knight MP, the schools minister, with Yes. I am absolutely happy that we are, and we have set up Ofqual to provide more public reassurance.
If we have set up Ofqual to provide that assurance, let it do so, by setting out clearly the actual knowledge required when setting pass marks and grade boundaries.
The same point applies to equivalencies. A merit in an International Therapy Examination Council diploma in tanning treatments is worth 45 pointsthe same as a grade A in one A-level module. Speaking at a recent seminar in London, Isabel Nisbet said that she has begun to wonder whether it really stands up against A level maths and that it seems to raise doubts about accrediting self-tanning courses as level 3 qualifications. She also said that her aide said that she chose it as an example of the tough judgments that the watchdog should make. Amendment 141 would help Ofqual to make those tough judgments and choices.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I have listened to both hon. Gentlemen with interest. Clause 138 has become something of a clause cĂ(c)lĂ¨bre, if hon. Members will excuse the pun, and I want to set out the Governments position in light of that media interest.
I can state categorically and unashamedly that ministerial interest in the school curriculum is not only legitimate, but necessary. That position has been established since the launch of the national curriculum two decades ago. This is not a sinister new development, as some have suggested. Ministers need to be democratically accountable for the curriculum. They need to be able to stand at the Dispatch Box and explain, for example, how the curriculum is ensuring that the next generation of young adults entering the work force will have the skills that employers are looking for; how they are preparing young people to play a full part in society when they grow up; how they are developing the maths, science and foreign language skills required for future economic prosperity, and how they are passing on to the next generation the knowledge and understanding that we consider to be the rightful inheritance and entitlement of every childour history, culture and knowledge of the world. That is a significant responsibility, and Ministers must approach it wisely. They must listen to a range of advice from the QCDA and elsewhere. They must allow teachers the space to exercise professional judgment within the requirements of the curriculum, and they must not change it too rapidly. For a Government to abandon their responsibility for the curriculum would be extraordinary.
Qualifications are closely related to the curriculum. They are an assessment of a learners attainments, reflecting what the learner has been taught. Qualifications can help drive and focus teaching, which is why they are so important when making educational policy. As with the curriculum, it would be extraordinary for a Government to give up any say in what qualifications should be available.

David Laws: The Minister says that if, for example, she were to accept the deletion of clause 138, the Government would have to give up their powers in that respect. Under what legislation can Ministers determine the content and structure of exams?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The Secretary of State has wide-ranging powers of control under existing legislation. He has the power to give directions to the QCA on how it should exercise its functions, including its function of setting criteria for the accreditation of qualifications.

David Laws: The Minister did not say that the Secretary of State has the power at the moment to determine the content or structure of exams. I presume that that is why the letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said that it is a new power.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: There is a power to direct the QCA under the Education Act 1997, and the QCA is currently accountable to Ministers. That is why we say that it is not a new power.

David Laws: The power to direct is in relation to what?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: As I explained, the power to direct the QCA on how it exercises its functions includes its function for setting criteria for the accreditation of qualifications.

Mary Creagh: I am listening with interest, but does the Minister share my concerns about amendment 141? It considers qualifications solely in respect of the knowledge that a person has. When I was redesigning the master of business administration course at Cranfield school of management with my colleagues, we considered knowledge, skills and ability, but is not the true test of knowledge how it is translated into action and how it is used in the workplace as well, of course, as its value in and of itself?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank the my hon. Friend for her intervention. I shall come to that point later.

David Laws: I grateful to the Minister for giving way; she has been most patient. I am not convinced by her earlier answer. Surely she is not going back on the statement that she made in her letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. She clearly said that there is currently no explicit statutory power to determine such matters.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I refer the hon. Gentleman to section 26(1) of the Education Act 1997, which states:
In carrying out their functions...the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority shall(a) comply with any directions given by the Secretary of State; and (b) act in accordance with any plans approved by him.
Those are wide-ranging powers indeed.

David Laws: They may be wide-ranging, but unless the Minister is suggesting that her letter of 14 March 2009 was wrong, she has already confirmed that there is currently no explicit statutory power to determine such matters.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We are dancingexcessively soon the head of a pin. There is no explicit statutory power that mentions qualifications. The wide-ranging power that I cite states:
any directions given by the Secretary of State; and...any plans approved by him.
We are becoming bogged down, so I shall move on.
Clause 138 allows the Secretary of State to set minimum requirements for qualifications relating to knowledge, skills and understanding. In it, we seek to balance two interests. On one hand is the legitimate interest of Ministers in the content of qualifications; on the other is the need for the regulator to be able to ensure that standards are maintained in order to provide public assurance. The interim Ofqual has gone on record to say that it is happy with the letter. On 10 February 2009, Kathleen Tattersall said:
I fully support the principle that Government should set the broad policy objectives...I am pleased that the Bill clarifies this balance of responsibilities, making it clear that the Secretary of State can specify publicly minimum requirements in respect of a limited range of aspects of a public qualification; and that Ofqual would need to meet those requirements when setting criteria for recognition or accreditation, in a way that will not encroach upon territory which is clearly the responsibility of the independent regulator.
Ministers will not be able to decide how qualifications are graded or assessed, or how standards are set. It is a real reduction in power, which is being given up to the independent regulator. Ministers may have views, but the final decision will be Ofquals alone. Of course, the content of qualifications can affect standards and assessment, so under clause 138, the Secretary of State will only be able to set minimum requirements for a qualification. He will not be able to reduce the requirements of a qualification, which might make it impossible for Ofqual to maintain standards, and Ofqual will continue to control the criteria that specify the requirements of a qualification. It will not be for Ministers to tell Ofqual how to deliver the minimum requirements.

David Laws: When the Minister was questioned on this issue in the evidence session a couple of weeks ago, she cited Shakespeare as an example of a requirement that she might embed in English examinations, so people would be obliged to read and be examined on Shakespeare. Can she explain why she decided that Shakespeare should be given priority over other great authors, such as Chaucer, Dickens or Jane Austen?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I was merely citing an example. I will come back to that point, with the examples that the hon. Member for Yeovil asked for, if he will be patient.
As with the curriculum, Ministers will need to use the powers wisely. We have publicly committed to safeguardswe will agree a memorandum of understanding with Ofqual over the use of the clause. Qualifications development is complex and takes time to get right, and we will not be making determinations every five minutes. It is more likely that the power will be used to require GCSEs to relate to the key stage 4 national curriculum, which they assess, than to require the use of specific text books.
Without clause 138, Ministers would lose any decision-making power over qualifications. Let me illustrate that point. Some years ago, a working group led by Sir Mike Tomlinson published a report on 14-to-19 qualifications. That high-profile report generated a lot of debate, with commentators and politicians on all sides taking a view. Four years ago, my ministerial predecessors published our response in a White Paper that set the direction of travel that we are still following today, in particular, with respect to 14-to-19 diplomas for which young people are now studying.
If the Bill had been in force without clause 138, none of that debate would have been possible. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Yeovil has had a chance to read the indicative regulations. An indicative determination would be the minimum requirements of the 14-to-19 diploma.

David Laws: Given the powers that the Joint Advisory Committee for Qualifications Approval and the QCDA have already and the way qualifications are funded, why is this power necessary in relation to the item that the Minister picked out?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I will move to another point. The hon. Gentleman has said that he wants to introduce a general diploma. Without the power in clause 138, he could not do that. If the power was not there, the regulator might refuse to implement it and there would be nothing that the hon. Gentleman could do about it, in the highly unlikely event that he was in a position to introduce a general diploma.

David Laws: I am not quite sure why that conclusion follows from her observations. There already are accrediting bodies, a national curriculum and the QCDA, which will develop the curriculum, and the Government power not to fund qualifications that do not meet the requirements of the Secretary of State, so what does this measure add to that array of powers?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It gives Ofqual powers to set the criteria, which are owned by Ofqual, so it needs to have the powers. Without clause 138, only a regulator can decide what is in a qualification. Ofqual may agree voluntarily to set criteria to meet a Ministers requirements. In practice, I hope that clause 138 determinations are unlikely to be necessary very often, because Ministers and Ofqual should aim to have a good working relationship, whereby Ofqual will agree to regulate for qualifications that deliver policy proposals, provided that those proposals are made to maintain standards.
Clause 138 is important for three reasons. First, as I have said, it is important because ministerial interest in qualifications is legitimate, and the clause is explicit about what matters Ministers have a say in and clear about what matters are not for them to decide. Secondly, it provides for the unlikely event that Ofqual starts behaving unreasonably and refuses to deliver the qualifications that Ministers want, without giving any good reasons. Thirdly, it ensures transparency. If Ministers want to influence what is in a qualification, there is no need for behind-the-scenes negotiation. They can make a determination, they have to publish it and they are accountable for it.
I want to move on to the five amendments to this clause that are not Government amendments. First, amendment 532 would mean that the Secretary of State could make a determination specifying minimum requirements only in respect of the qualification in exceptional circumstances. Often, it will not be clear whether a particular set of circumstances is exceptional. That is a fundamental difficulty with the amendment. Lawyers could spend a lot of time arguing about whether a particular set of circumstances is exceptional. That lack of clarity and the uncertainty that it would give rise to means, in our view, that the wording of the amendment does not work.
I think that amendment 532 seeks to address two concerns and I have some sympathy with both. The first concern might be that Ministers should not make frequent changes to qualifications and therefore that determinations should be made only occasionally. I agree with that view. Qualification reform is complex, takes time to get right and the stakes are high, particularly, of course, for the learners who would be affected. Ministers should not issue new determinations unless it is appropriate and necessary to do so. However, I do not think that we can write that into the legislation. There is no clear or easy way of describing that, and amendment 532 does not achieve that description. Instead, we should rely on the memorandum of understanding that we have put in place, and on Ministers taking seriously their responsibility to learners, along with the transparency that is created by having an independent regulator to prevent problems.

David Laws: I appreciate the fact that the Minister said that she is quite sympathetic to the concerns that underlie amendment 532. However, is it really that difficult or impossible to put the wording in the amendment in the Bill? After all, we were discussing earlierI think that it was only this morning, although it seems like some time ago nowclause 126(7), in which the Government specify:
Ofqual must perform its functions efficiently and effectively.
At that time, I questioned the fact that those words are very general.
Given that the Government are willing to have wording that is so general in a Bill of this type, surely there is no reason at all why they cannot make it clear in the Bill that this power in clause 138 is one for exceptional circumstances? Alternatively, the Minister, with all the support that she has to hand, might be able to introduce a different form of words that could express her intentions in the Bill.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I think that I made it clear to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that the Bill is the right place for that and that we should rely on the memorandum of understanding. However, another concern lies behind amendment 532. I think that it says that Ministers should make a determination only occasionally because normally it would be unnecessary. We would hope that ministerial policy decisions relating to qualifications, as put forward through draft criteria developed by QCDA, should be easy for Ofqual to accept. We do not want Ministers relationship with Ofqual to be characterised by the need to issue formal determinations. However, I do not see how that could be required in law. I think that we should use the memorandum of understanding.
Amendment 533 would require the Secretary of State to
agree with Ofqual the circumstances in which
he could make a determination specifying minimum requirements in respect of a qualification
and publish the terms of the agreement..
As the Secretary of State said in his letter to Kathleen Tattersall last month, it is certainly our intention to make and publish such an agreement with Ofqual. We could, therefore, put it in the legislation. However, the problem with doing that is that there cannot be a legal duty on the Secretary of State to agree something with Ofqual, because ultimately, by refusing to come to an agreement, Ofqual could veto the use of the power, which would undermine the intention of the provision. Again, I must ask the Committee to trust the public commitments that the Secretary of State has made to develop an agreement.
The amendment would also delete the requirement to publish a determination. I am not clear why that has been proposed. The requirement to publish is key to ensuring that the system is fully transparent and therefore that confidence can be maintained.
Amendment 233 would require Ofqual to include in its annual report a copy of any published determination that the Secretary of State makes and how Ofqual responded to such a determination. We do not need that provision in the Bill. A determination will be in the public domain, and I suspect that Ofqual would want to refer to it in its annual report. The Secretary of State is required to publish any determination and there will need to be public consultation on the criteria and conditions that are set to give effect to that determination. The Select Committees will doubtless want to discuss any section 138 determinations with Ofqual as part of the oversight of its work.
On amendment 141, Ofqual will have discretion to decide when a qualification requires individual scrutiny. In such a case, it would require that the qualification was accredited. Ofqual would then publish criteria, which might be drafted by the QCDA, for the accreditation of qualifications that are subject to the requirement. When appropriate, the criteria would have to include, for example, the academic content that must be covered in the qualifications for them to be accredited. What would be required by the amendment will happen anyway, so I do not see that it would add anything.
Amendment 5 would make it explicit that the Secretary of State does not have the power to make a determination to specify requirements in relation to the setting of grades or the assessment of the qualifications. I strongly agree with the sentiment of the amendment. Grading and assessment are very clearly the domain of the regulator. A Minister who sought to make a minimum requirement relating to such areas would risk undermining the independence of the regulator and, therefore, the credibility of the qualification system. That is why the Bill will prevent the minimum requirement on grading or assessment. Clause 138(3) clearly defines a minimum requirement as
a requirement that relates to the knowledge, skills or understanding which a person must demonstrate in order to obtain the qualification or a qualification of the description in question.
Therefore, a requirement is about what someone must demonstrate, not how it is demonstrated or how the achievement is recorded. The definition does not, therefore, allow requirements relating to the setting of grades or assessment.
The amendment would not affect the nature of the minimum requirements that the Secretary of State can determine. The Government have made clear what the respective roles of Ofqual and Ministers should be on qualifications, and interim Ofqual has indicated that it is content with that position. If a decision relates to grading or standards, it is rightly a matter for the regulator. That is exactly what is written in the Bill. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

David Laws: I am sorry if I missed the substantive point of those last comments, but the Minister clearly indicated that she is very sympathetic to the sentiments that are behind, or embedded in, amendment 5. Why can she not simply accept it, or make a similar amendment of her own?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Such an amendment is unnecessary because the Bill will already prevent Ministers from doing what the amendment says they must not do.
Government amendments 453 to 456 and 458 fall into two groups. First, amendments 453, 454, 456 and 458 relate to ensuring that the Secretary of State can vary a determination as long as he publishes and gives notice of it to Ofqual. We do not intend to use the measure very often. As I said, changing the broad content of qualifications such as GCSEs is not something to be undertaken frequently, but nor must we be in a position in which qualifications fail to evolve over time. The amendments allow the Government to change the high-level requirements over time as the curriculum evolves.
Secondly, amendment 455 adds Ofquals functions under clause 131the power to set general conditionsto the list of functions that Ofqual must exercise for the purposes of implementing a determination made under clause 138. That reflects the fact that the Bill has two concepts of the requirements of awarding bodies: criteria and conditions. Criteria are only directly relevant at the time an awarding body applies to be recognised or to have a qualification accredited. As I explained to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, once the criteria have been met and recognition or accreditation has been granted, Ofqual will regulate the activities of awarding bodies through its general and specific conditions. It may therefore need to use the conditions as well as the criteria to implement the determination. For example, if a determination required GCSE English to reflect the national curriculum key stage 4 programme of study, the accreditation criteria for GCSE English would require that awarding bodies submit GCSE English specifications reflecting the programme of study. The clause 131 conditions would require that they continue to offer the qualifications on that basis.
With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will agree to add the Government amendments to the Bill.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to the Minister for that very full response to the amendments. The hon. Member for Wakefield made a point about knowledge versus skills. Amendment 141 would not rule out criteria to assess skills, but the concern is that, over the past 10 years, the knowledge content of some of our qualificationsnot all, but somehas been depleted or removed from the GCSE qualification. Ofqual agrees with us on that point, and that is why our concern is about the level of knowledge: we are not concerned about the level of skills being assessed but we are genuinely concerned, as are the public, about how much knowledge we ask our children to acquire. On many occasions, such knowledge is reduced, and that is very damaging.

Mary Creagh: I was curious about the hon. Gentlemans use of the tanning salon as an example of something that was not equivalent to an A-level. I am sure that he is far too sensible to use a tanning salon, as are most Committee members, because of the known risks associated with skin cancer, but, given that there are such risks in a tanning salon, does he not think it appropriate that people who operate such salons have a higha level 2 qualification to advise their clients on the appropriate length of exposure to tanning rays and on the sunscreen factor that they should wear?

Nick Gibb: I agree. If one goes into that industry, a qualification in self-tanning or in how to use a tanning booth is very important. The problem comes when we try to pretend that it is equivalent to a module in A-level maths. It diminishes and undermines the credibility of the vocational qualification, because everybody knows that they are not equivalent, hence the point made by Isabel Nisbet from Ofqual, who is also concerned about that. I cited Ofquals concern about such equivalence, and we must get away from trying to pretend that all things are the same in the pursuit of parity of esteem. Vocational qualifications, if they are high quality, of course have parity of esteem with academic qualifications, but if we pretend that they are the same as academic qualifications, we destroy the credibility of both.
Our concern is about knowledge, and I take on board the Ministers points about amendment 233. It is already a requirement to publish any determination that the Secretary of State makes under the clause. The amendments purpose was to make it crystal clear that there would be transparency. However, given her assurances that there will be transparency, I am happy not to pursue either amendment to a vote.

David Laws: I am also grateful to the Minister for a very detailed response, and for her usual patience in taking a large number of interventions.
I shall touch on our amendments532, 533 and 5 and then reflect on the wider issues raised by clause 138. The Minister said that she believes that, embedded in the Bill, is the content of amendment 5, preventing the Secretary of State from making a determination under subsection (1) on the grading or assessment of the qualifications. Perhaps it is just the time of day, but I need to reflect on that, to look carefully at her comments and see whether she is right that there is enough protection. If I feel that she has been slightly generous in her interpretation of how much protection the Bill affords, I may return to the issue.
Amendment 532 would include a provision on the power being used in exceptional circumstances. I was not convinced by the Ministers arguments on that. We can point to many other parts of the Bill in which general directions or powers are granted that are far vaguer and more difficult to pin down than the words exceptional circumstances, which are, after all, used very carefully in the explanatory notes. However, I will press that amendment and divide the Committee later, because it is crucial to how these powers will be used.
I should like to reflect a bit on some of the wider issues to do with the extent to which politicians should be able to interfere in the contents of examinations. In spite of the Ministers suggestion that, in some way, there are already powers that allow interference by the back door through the QCA, she confirmed in her letter to the Committee that there is currently no explicit statutory power to determine such matters, which appears to bolster the back-door powers that there may already be. Regardless of whether those powers exist or not, there is an issue of principle about whether politicians should be able to interfere in the ways that the Minister anticipated in her evidence session, when she mentioned that Shakespeare should, in her view, be part of an English language GCSE as an obligation imposed by the Secretary of State. We heard a contrasting view from the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, although I accept that he was explaining what would happen in a world with more choice in the education market.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Is it the view of the hon. Gentleman and his party that our school children should not study Shakespeare?

David Laws: No. I will explain in one second how my view differs from the Ministers

Jim Knight: In one second? We will hold you to that.

David Laws: In a few moments. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to stay in the Committee Room to hear me.
I was about to explain the three different positions on this matter. Clearly, I need to do so in more detail than I had initially anticipated. One extreme view, which is interesting, coming from the Conservative partyalthough I accept the proviso of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton that this would happen when there was more of a market in educationis that in an ideal world there should be, even for maintained schools, no national curriculum that is as prescriptive as the one that the Government want, which would determine that Shakespeare must be in the English curriculum, for example. I think that he was also saying that in this world of greater choice and freedom in state-funded education, an obligation on the Secretary of State to insist that the examinations embedded Shakespeare, for example, would also not be needed. In his ideal world, he would no longer prescribe what the Minister seeks to prescribe, either in the national curriculum or in the qualifications that youngsters have to take.

Nick Gibb: But we are living in a world, today, in which Ofsted says that 43 per cent. of secondary schools are not good enough. While that situation persistsI expect that it will persist for some timethere needs to be a considerable degree of prescription to ensure that, through the national curriculum and our exam system, schools are providing the kind of education that parents require.

David Laws: Yes, I register that point, but even in the discussions in the Select Committee there is a wide range of views about how the national curriculum should develop. Conservative party policy nationally is that academy schools should be able to opt out of the national curriculum. I appreciate that the hon. Gentlemans perfect world would take a period of time to evolve, but he is saying, helpfully and in a principled way, that his vision is that the maintained sectorin future, when standards have risen and the choice is therewould be able to operate in the same way as the independent sector, so there would be no need for a prescriptive national curriculum and no need for such prescriptiveness in the examinations.

Nick Gibb: Of course, in that world schools would be teaching Shakespeare and a rigorous academic curriculum, including the three separate sciences and good maths and literacy. That is the ultimate aim of all Committee members, is it not?

David Laws: I suspect that that is probably so and I would be surprised if the schools were not doing that, but the hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants schools to be free to do so or not to do so. They might decide that Chaucer is very important and select examinations in which other key authors who are named in the national curriculum are specified, such as Dickens, Hardy, Austen, Bronte, H. G. Wells or Wordsworth. There is no obligation to cover any of those authors in qualifications at the moment. The hon. Gentleman thinks that schools would do that, but acknowledges that parental choice would also be influential. Parents might want a school that does not teach some of those subjects. It is a logical consequence of his policy that some schools might not cover Shakespeare in their curriculum and might chose qualifications that do not cover him.
On the other hand, the Minister wants not only to prescribe through the national curriculum, but has made it clear that she wants the Secretary of State to have the power to direct that particular authors should be covered in qualifications. That is an extraordinary degree of direction. The Minister has cited Shakespeare as if it is obvious that he should always be covered in English examinations. By picking out Shakespeare, she has left out a long list of authors who presumably she does not believe need to be covered in English examinations. [Interruption.] She is pooh-poohing that from a sedentary position, but her implicit position is that Shakespeare should have special status, whereas Chaucer, Dickens, Austen, Bronte, Hardy, Keats, Wordsworth, WellsI could read out lots of other names if you want me to, Mrs. Humbledo not have the same status. The Minister is quite happy to jettison them all and leave them to the devices of the national curriculum and schools.

Nick Gibb: Far be it from me to come to the Ministers defence, but is it not the case that the former Secretary of State intervened because there was a danger that Shakespeare would be removed and would not be taught in schools? There was no evidence that those other authors were not being taught. He intervened to tackle the specific problem that Shakespeare would not be taught in some schools because it was difficult, whereas those other authors probably would have been taught.

David Laws: Really? Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that all those schools that were not teaching Shakespeare were teaching Chaucer, Blake and Dickens? I very much doubt it.
In any case, the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that the Secretary of State would determine such things if his reforms were accepted. Under his model, the market would decide through parental preference. He will have to accept that some parents might prefer not to have some authors on the list.
The issue of authors and English examinations seems relatively simple in comparison to history. So far, we have not tempted the Minister to indicate which parts of British or foreign history she thinks should be obligatory for the GCSE. I will give way happily if she wishes to pick any out. [Interruption.] The Minister says from a sedentary position that she will not pick out the bits of history that should be covered in the GCSE examination. The Secretary of State will have that power under the clause. He could decide tomorrow morning that particular parts of British history should be included in the history examination. He could specify that the history of the labour movement should be covered in the examination. We could have that degree of political control.
As the Minister asked for it earlier, my view is that it is reasonable to have a minimum curriculum that sets out the key expectations, but that it is unreasonable and unnecessary to embed that curriculum in the examinations system. It is not necessary for Ministers to micro-manage the curriculum to that extraordinary degree. Anyone who is interested in this matter can look at the long list of authors in the national curriculum who are regarded as an acceptable part of the English literary heritage. Goodness knows whether Ministers have approved that list or been involved in who is included or who is taken out. There is also a list of contemporary writers. Goodness knows which Ministers were involved in selecting Jennifer Donnelly, John Fowles and Susan Hill to be part of that approved list.
I question not only whether we need to be so detailed and prescriptive in the national curriculum, but whether Ministers need to take these extraordinary powers to specify such things for qualifications. Like The Times, The Daily Telegraph, the Daily Express, many other newspapers and many colleagues in Parliament, I do not trust here-today, gone-tomorrow politicians to take the right decisions about what should be embedded in our exams. The Minister is on slightly different ground when she talks about the structure of qualifications and the interest that the Government might have in that. They already have a great degree of influence over that through the QCDA and through the Secretary of States powers not to fund particular qualifications. We have this body that we will discuss laterJACQAwhich gives advice to the Secretary of State about whether any of these qualifications should be funded in the first place.
In her comments on the structure of examinations, she mentioned that she might want these powers where Ofqual or the exam boards were refusing to deliver what Ministers wanted. That is rather telling about an attitude to the examinations system, and perhaps the curriculum as well, and it is extremely top down. This is about what Ministers think is right for children throughout the country. They are qualifications that Ministers pick and it reflects back on our earlier debate about whether there should be a market in qualifications where the wishes of schools, parents and youngsters themselves should be influential in determining what qualifications are taken up, or whether this is a really top-down process where Ministers pick and choose qualifications and try to shunt the qualifications framework in a particular direction. When Ministers do that they are often extremely unsuccessful. Indeed, in the past 30 years, successive Governments have promoted vocational qualifications that have no traction, credibility or a value in the market.

Charles Walker: I have some sympathy for the hon. Gentlemans argument, but I also have some sympathy for the Governments position, which is hard to have. What would happen if some school, some governing body or some qualification agency took it upon itself to have a one-year module in Barbara Cartland? Surely we would expect some form of intervention to stop that and to ensure that Barbara Cartland did not squeeze out William Shakespeare.

David Laws: Under the system I am suggesting there would still be a national curriculum. It is under the system that his party is suggesting, albeit at some stage in the future, that that complete free-for-all would evolve. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton told us that he believes that the best schools should be able to opt out not only from qualifications prescribed by the Secretary of State, but from the national curriculum. Indeed, I think the Conservative party says that already in relation to academies. So that really is a question that is best addressed to his own Front Bench.
I fear that I have not yet persuaded the Minister, and I may have exhausted both the Committee and the argument. I will want to return to the wider issues at a later date, but I would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendments made: 452, in clause 138, page 78, line 16, leave out relation to and insert respect of.

This is a technical drafting amendment to achieve consistency with the wording of clause 138(1).
Amendment 453, in clause 138, page 78, line 22, leave out this section and insert subsection (1).

This amendment is consequent on amendment 458.
Amendment 454, in clause 138, page 78, line 23, at end insert
( ) Subsection (5) applies in relation to a qualification or description of qualification in respect of which a determination under subsection (1) has effect..

This amendment is consequent on amendment 458.
Amendment 455, in clause 138, page 78, line 24, leave out or 137 in relation to a and insert
, 131 or 137 in relation to the.

This amendment adds Ofquals functions under clause 131 (power to set general conditions) to the list of functions which Ofqual must exercise for the purposes of implementing a determination made under clause 138(1).
Amendment 456, in clause 138, page 78, line 25, leave out to which a determination under this section applies.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 458.
Amendment 457, in clause 138, page 78, line 30, leave out or will and insert
, will be or may reasonably be expected to.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 436.
Amendment 458, in clause 138, page 78, line 31, at end insert
( ) A determination made under subsection (1) may be amended or revoked by the Secretary of State; and subsection (4) applies to the amendment of a determination as it applies to the making of a determination.. (Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

This amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to amend or revoke a determination made under clause 138(1). If a determination is amended, it must be published as revised and notice of it given to Ofqual.

Clause 138, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 139

Assignment of numbers of hours of guided learning

Amendments made: 459, in clause 139, page 78, line 33, leave out regulated qualification and insert
particular form of a qualification in respect of which it is recognised.

This amendment and amendment 462 ensure that where a body is recognised in respect of a qualification which is relevant for 2008 Act purposes, it must assign guided learning hours to each individual form of the qualification awarded by it, such as a particular version of GCSE English.
Amendment 460, in clause 139, page 78, line 35, leave out regulated.

This amendment corrects a misuse of the term regulated qualification and clarifies that whether a qualification is relevant for 2008 Act purposes is to be determined in relation to the qualification as a whole and not in relation to individual forms of the qualification.
Amendment 461, in clause 139, page 78, line 38, leave out regulated.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 460. This amendment is consequent on that amendment.
Amendment 462, in clause 139, page 78, line 40, after to insert the particular form of.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 459.
Amendment 463, in clause 139, page 79, line 1, leave out regulated.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 460. This amendment is consequent on that amendment.
Amendment 464, in clause 139, page 79, line 3, leave out most recently published and insert then in force.

This amendment ensures it is the criteria for assignment of a number of hours of guided learning which are in force for the time being that are applicable for the purposes of this section. Those criteria may not come into force immediately when published.
Amendment 465, in clause 139, page 79, line 5, leave out regulated.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 460. This amendment is consequent on that amendment.
Amendment 466, in clause 139, page 79, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) and insert
(b) in respect of a qualification which the body has determined is relevant for those purposes, a number of hours of guided learning to assign to a form of the qualification..

This amendment and amendment 475 are technical drafting amendments which recognise that whether a qualification is relevant for 2008 Act purposes is a matter which is to be determined by the relevant recognised body. This amendment is also consequent on amendments 459 and 462.
Amendment 467, in clause 139, page 79, line 9, leave out Ofqual publishes revised criteria and insert revised criteria come into force.

This amendment ensures that the duty of a recognised body to review a determination under clause 139 applies when revised criteria for making those determinations come into force (rather than when they are published).
Amendment 468, in clause 139, page 79, line 17, leave out regulated.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 460. This amendment is consequent on that amendment.
Amendment 469, in clause 139, page 79, line 20, leave out the qualification and insert
a form of the qualification awarded or authenticated by the recognised body.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 459. This amendment is consequent on that amendment.
Amendment 470, in clause 139, page 79, line 22, leave out from having to end of line 24 and insert
determined to assign that number of hours of guided learning to that form of the qualification.

This amendment achieves the technical change referred to in the Members explanatory statement for amendment 466. It also ensures that any determination made by Ofqual to assign guided learning hours to a form of a qualification applies as if made by the relevant recognised body for all purposes.
Amendment 471, in clause 139, page 79, line 25, leave out regulated.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 460. This amendment is consequent on that amendment.
Amendment 472, in clause 139, page 79, line 30, after to insert a form of.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 459. This amendment is consequent on that amendment and amendment 462.
Amendment 473, in clause 139, page 79, line 33, after obtain insert that form of.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 459. This amendment is consequent on that amendment and amendment 462.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: I rise to quiz the Minister about guided hours. The clause, as amended, now includes amendment 459 and the explanatory note to that amendment says:
This amendment and amendment 462 ensure that where a body is recognised in respect of a qualification which is relevant for 2008 Act purposes, it must assign guided learning hours to each individual form of the qualification awarded by it, such as a particular version of GCSE English.
When we debated that amendment, and similar matters earlier on in the debate, I asked the Minister: to which qualifications would those learning hours be applied? She indicated:
As regards to the guided learning hours, that relates to raising the participation age, as agreed in the Education and Skills Act 2008. That creates a duty on young people above compulsory school age, but under-18, to participate in education or training.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 24 March 2009; c. 579.]
I thought that I had obtained from the Minister confirmation that that would not apply to qualifications applicable to those under the age of 18. Yet, now we seem to have passed an amendment to part of clause 139, where the explanatory note seems to say that it would apply to a particular version of GCSE English.
Will the Minister explain clause 139 and what qualifications it will apply to? Can she say how the guided hours are calculated and why? I would have thought that the number of hours required to teach a particular qualification was a matter for the professional judgment of teachers and not something that should be set down by legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify those points of confusion.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I am happy to clarify that clause 139 relates to the 2008 Act of raising the persons participation age. It only applies to 16 and 17-year-olds. It applies to people studying in full-time employment and is the 280 guided learning hours that the 2008 Act duty applied to.

Nick Gibb: I am still not clear whether that means all the GCSEs must have applied to them guided learning hours for each part of those GCSEs. That is the concern, that all such qualifications being taken by people under the age of 16 will have to have guided learning hours applied to them. Can the Minister confirm that that will not apply? She seemed to indicate earlier, in our deliberations of 24 March, that it would not be applicable to GCSEs

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The legislation states that where a body offers a qualification that that body decides is relevant for the purpose of the 2008 Actit may be used by young people in full-time employment to fulfil the duty to participatethat body must assign to the qualification a number of hours of guided learning. It is probably not applicable to GCSEs.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful for that explanation. Does it apply to A-levels?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: If someone has attained a level 3 qualification, which is the level of attainment demonstrated by obtaining A-levels in two subjects, the duty to participate does not apply.

Mary Creagh: I would like to take issue with what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said about it being down to individual teachers to decide. The issue of establishing guided learning hours and having it in legislationbeing absolutely transparent across qualificationsis the guarantee of quality and comparability for the quality of the education that we are trying to give young people.
As I said, when I sat down and redesigned a master of business administration from a full-time structure into a modular structure that was to be delivered in two-week blocks over a two-year period, we had to look at the guided learning involved. We had to work out how our qualification was going to be safeguarded but at the same time give students some excellent experience and make sure that they were all coming out at the end with an equivalent qualification. The guarantee that that is happening is in the notional or guided learning hours that are attached to a qualification.

Nick Gibb: I do not agree. What is needed in a qualification is specified knowledge that children need to have by the end of the period. For some children, that will be learned in quite a few learning hours, but for many it requires more. For a small minority, it may require a number of learning hours way beyond the average. The number of learning hours becomes a meaningless number for most students. Teachers will feel that such hours are an infringement of their professional autonomy.
My other reason for disliking the notion of guided learning hours is that they are used as equivalencies between things that do not have an equivalence. That is where we get into the self-tanning problem. A self-tanning module might require 40 learning hours to achieve the qualification. A module in physics A-level might require 40 learning hours. Therefore, for some reason, they are then deemed to have equivalence on the basis of those guided learning hours. We do not want to go down that route, because it is pretence, it is false and it will undermine the credibility of vocational qualifications. That is my concern about guided learning hours.

Clause139, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 140

Criteria for assignment of number of hours of guided learning

Amendments made: 474, in clause 140, page 79, line 45, leave out regulated.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 460. This amendment is consequent on that amendment.
Amendment 475, in clause 140, page 80, line 1, at beginning insert form of the qualification.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 466.
Amendment 476, in clause 140, page 80, leave out line 2 and insert form of the qualification.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 459. This amendment is consequent on that amendment and amendment 462.
Amendment 477, in clause 140, page 80, leave out line 4 and insert
qualifications or different descriptions of qualifications..

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 460. This amendment is consequent on that amendment.
Amendment 299, in clause 140, page 80, line 5, leave out from time to time.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 290.

Clause140, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 141

Register

Amendments made: 478, in clause 141, page 80, line 12, leave out respect in and insert qualifications in respect of.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 479. This is a drafting amendment consequent on that amendment.
Amendment 479, in clause 141, page 80, leave out line 13 and insert
(b) the forms of those qualifications which are awarded or authenticated by it,.

This amendment ensures that where an awarding body is recognised in respect of a qualification Ofqual is under a duty to include on the register details of each particular form of the qualification which the body awards or authenticates.
Amendment 480, in clause 141, page 80, line 15, leave out such qualification and insert of those qualifications.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 479. This is a drafting amendment consequent on that amendment.
Amendment 481, in clause 141, page 80, line 17, leave out the qualification insert
each form of the qualification awarded or authenticated by it.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 459. This amendment is consequent on that amendment and amendment 462.

Clause 141, as amended, to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 142

Review of activities of recognised bodies

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: The clause seems to give Ofqual the duty to keep under review any connected activities of an examination awarding body. It defines connected activities in subsection (2)(a) and (b). The concern is that the word connected seems very loose. Will the Minister provide reassurance that her intention in using the word connected is not loose but that the activity is to be directly and materially connected to the examination side of the awarding bodies?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Are we discussing amendment 531?

Nick Gibb: No.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The intention under connected purposes is to allow Ofqual to keep under review any activities which may impact on the credibility of the qualifications offered or the effective or fair operation of the qualification system.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 142 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 143 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 144

Power to give directions

David Laws: I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 144, page 81, line 10, leave out from may to end of line 11 and insert
(a) direct a recognised body to take or refrain from taking specified steps with a view to securing compliance with the condition, and
(b) direct a recognised body to set the standards in a specified qualification, on a specified occasion, at a specified level..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 559, in clause 144, page 81, line 11, at end insert
(2A) A direction under this section may include a direction to the recognised body to pay a financial penalty where Ofqual considers it appropriate..

David Laws: I would like to start by talking to amendment 8 which is in my name and that of my colleagues. I hope that the Minister will offer assurances which make it unnecessary to press the amendment to a vote. There was a degree of discussion on this topic in the evidence session we had a couple of weeks ago and there was disagreement between those present as to whether the powers that amendment 8 seeks to give to Ofqual are already contained in the Bill. The Minister will probably be aware of the origin of this amendment. It was suggested by the AQAMike Cresswell talked about this issue at the evidence session. In some ways it came out of concerns raised by the experiences of last summer when there was a disagreement between three of the awarding bodies over the grade boundaries for the GCSE science examination. Two of the awarding bodies wished to set the grade boundary at a lower level than the AQA and the AQA felt bounced into agreeing at the last minute to set a lower boundary than it thought right, as a consequence of feeling pressured by Ofqual to accept the will of the majority. Clearly none of us wants such disputes and in a well operating, well functioning system issues of this type would be resolved at a much earlier stage. The AQA feelsand I think it perfectly proper for Ofqual to have this powerthat where there are disputes of that kind Ofqual should have unambiguous powers to direct a recognised body to set standards in a specified qualification on a particular occasion at a specified level. Kathleen Tattersall said on the record in our evidence session that she believes that Ofqual already has that power. I believe Greg Watson or one of the other awarding body chief executives present on that occasion also said that he believed that the power was embedded in the Bill but that is not the view of the AQA. It believes that the particular power to give directions under the clause is ambiguous.
It seems ironic for an awarding body to suggest it, but the commitment of the AQA and others to proper standards and scrutiny means that they want Ofqual to have this power. If the Minister can assure me that the powers are most certainly to be granted under the clause, I will be satisfied. But it is the uncertainty with the clause that caused me to table the amendment.
I would also like to comment on amendment 559, if the hon. Member for Wakefield allows me to do so. I hope that she will not feel that I am pre-empting any of what she will say, but because I am speaking on both amendments, it is only suitable that I make my comments now. In her amendment, the hon. Lady has raised an extremely important issue about whether Ofqual should have a power to fine. That issue was touched on in the evidence session a few weeks ago, when Ofqual asked about that. It indicated clearlyas it did in its note to the Committeethat it would like to have that power. There were a number of exchanges involving, I think, the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough, the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North and the Minister for Schools and Learners. The issue was whether the power to fine was necessary.
We have not so far supported such a power, which is partly because, as liberals, we have a natural reticence to giving all sorts of unnecessary powers to the Government and its agencieswe generally think that lighter-touch regulations are desirable. However, we have considered the issues carefully. As you may be aware, Mrs. Humble, there was a letter written to a couple of members of the Committee yesterdayI am not sure whether it was addressed to all members of the Committeeby Kathleen Tattersall of Ofqual, setting out some of its views on the matter in greater detail, which I welcome. That is an indication of Ofquals interest in the issues and its independence. I am also grateful to Fiona Pethick of Ofqual for giving me further information about its views.
Some of the reasons to be reticent about granting the power to fine were set out clearly by Greg Watson of Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations in the evidence sessions a couple a weeks ago, who was responding to the hon. Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough. He said that in an ideal system, fining should not be necessary:
a regulator that finds itself counting crashed planes and fining people for crashing them is an unsuccessful regulator. The important thing is that effort, power, authority and resource within Ofqual must be devoted to getting qualifications that are fit for use into the system in the first place.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 75, Q198.]
I very much agree with that, and I am sure that Ofqual would as well. Any fining powers should not be used frequently, and if they were, it would be an indication that the regulator and the bodies concerned were not doing their job. As far as I am aware, other public bodies that have such fining powers do not use them on a frequent basisalthough it will be useful to know whether the Minister has any information and evidence about the frequency that such powers are used.
Greg Watson also pointed out that since OCR is a charity, a not-for-profit organisation, he has concerns not only about being fined, but about the implications of that on the reputation of his particular organisation. He said that because of those issues with reputation,
the threat of being shamed is much stronger than the threat of being fined for an organisation like mine.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 76, Q198.]
The Minister for Schools and Learners rightly pointed out that we have many other awarding bodies, including McDonalds and Flybe, which the Minister cited. It may be the case that not all of those awarding bodiesI am not criticising those two organisations, before their chief executives write to me, or possibly, the Minister; I mean unspecified organisationshave quite the reputation that OCR has, and they will not face such a penalty from naming and shaming. Ofqual has therefore come back and said that it continues to believe that powers of the type contained in amendment 559 should be in the armoury of the regulator, and Kathleen Tattersall stated in her letter of 25 March that that would help to act as a deterrent and as an immediate sanctioning step before the ultimate step of withdrawing recognition from an awarding body. The Ofqual committee therefore confirmed that it supports a final power as a valuable addition to its powers, and it has pointed out that many other regulators possess such powers, including Ofwat, Ofgem, Ofcom and the Office of the Rail Regulator.
As I understand it, Ofquals case is that there needs to be something between naming and shaming, which might not be a considerable sanction for some organisations, and the ultimate sanction of removing the recognition of an organisation and stopping it from awarding recognised qualifications, which could of course be devastating to those organisations and do great damage to learners. I find those representations quite convincing, and it seems to me unlikely that a body such as Ofqual, if it had the right staff and leadership, would be likely to use those powers irresponsibly.
Although Greg Watson made some excellent points in his evidence to the Committee, I am neither sure that all of them address Ofquals concerns, nor convinced that all bodies would suffer the damage to their reputations, which is so important to OCR, which has obviously been around for many years.
I hope that Ministers will consider giving Ofqual some powers on that matter, but several questions must be asked before they are given. Indeed, Ofqual sent me a note yesterday evening commenting on some of the issues I have touched on, such as whether those powers should be available, whether amendment 559 is right for delivering that and what the scale of fines should be. I am sorry to take time on that, but it is obviously an important issue and I would like to touch on some of those points.
I hope that you will not mind, Mrs. Humble, if I read some of Ofquals observations on those points. I asked Ofqual whether it believes that amendment 559 is the right response, and although it supports having a fining power, it believes that the current amendment is insufficient, as the hon. Member for Wakefield, who tabled the amendment, may know. Fiona Pethick stated in that note that she
would anticipate any fining power given to Ofqual should be couched in legal safeguards that provide a framework in which we could use the power. We would anticipate that framework would be similar to that given to other regulators that have fining powers...We would also expect to be required to set out, and consult on, a sanctions policy. In setting out such a policy we would make it clear that we would act in line with the Macrory principles of restorative justice set out in the Better Regulation Executive.
I hope that that means more to the Minister than it does to me. Ofqual clearly believes that the amendment is a good one, but that there need to be additional safeguards, specifications and consultation on that, and I agree.
I also asked Ofqual what the scale of any fine should be if such a power were given, and it answered that it
would anticipate that the legislation would limit the scale of any fine to say 10 per cent of the turnover of the relevant part of the awarding organisations revenue in the preceding year. So where an awarding body had business that was not related to qualifications this would not be taken into account.
It stated that
examples of other income could include income from publishing or from overseas examining. Experience from other regulators suggests that any actual fines would be very much smaller than 10 per cent.
For us to agree to the additional fining power, we would need not only those earlier guarantees about legal safeguards and consultation about how the sanctions policy was going to work, but to know the scale of fines envisaged. Given that there is already the serious power to withdraw the ability to accredit, we would not want to set the fining power at a level that was likely to disable any of the bodies and make it impossible for them to continue to operate.
The email from Ofqual dated 25 March also addresses whether fines would simply result in higher fees for future qualifications, and states that Ofqual would put safeguards in place using its fee-capping powers if necessary to prevent fines from being passed on. The email clarifies where Ofqual would see the moneys from fines going:
We would first expect any awarding body to recompense any learner or centre for monies they may have lost as a result of whatever misdemeanour the fine applies to. We would then expect any financial penalty to go to the consolidated fund, this is in line with other regulators and reflects the fact that when it is not feasible, appropriate or economic to recompense all the individuals who lose out as a result of the failure the taxpayers as a whole are the best substitute for the public.
There are also comments in that email, which was sent to me and, I believe, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, about the circumstances in which Ofqual would wish to use the powers. I think that I have touched on those. The final point the email addresses is why the financial penalties would be necessary, over and above the existing powers to name and shame and remove an awarding bodys recognition.
So, I am sympathetic to Ofqual having such a power. We want Ofqual to be an independent regulator, as we have already made clear, but also one that has the teeth to act when it needs to, and powers and sanctions that are proportionate to the offences or problems that have arisen. We therefore hopeI do not wish to anticipate the speech of the hon. Member for Wakefieldthat the Government will respond positively, but consider coming back with amendments that allow for some of the powers but with the proper safeguards, and a proper indication of how the powers will be used and what the scale of fines will be.

Mary Creagh: I thank the hon. Member for Yeovil for setting out so eloquently the reasons behind my amendment. He has given many of the arguments that I was to use.
The amendment is not perfect, but I believe that perfection is the enemy of the good. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is a good amendment. Most other regulators have the power to fine, and regulation should create an environment in which innovation can flourish and people can take risks, while still safeguarding the public interest. The ultimate deterrent, to keep the public interest at the forefront of regulators minds, is the ability to impose a fine. I am not sure whether I can imagine the circumstances in which such a fine would be imposed. There would have to be catastrophic failure on behalf of the examining organisations, with consistently poor service and behaviouregregious examples, which cannot be imagined because they have not happened. In some ways, that shows that we already have a reasonably good system of regulation, but the deterrent is important.
The issue of whether Ofqual should have the power to fine is not new. It was raised by the Government in the 2007 consultation paper, Confidence in Standards, and 62 per cent. of respondents felt that Ofqual should have such a power. Unsurprisingly, none of the awarding organisations felt it necessary. It was important that we listened to the chair of Ofqual, as we did on 3 March, when she gave evidence to the Committee asking for the power to be included in the Bill.

Nick Gibb: Does the hon. Lady envisage the power to fine being applicable to the QCA as well? If it failed to deliver proper assessments of SATS, as it did last summer, could Ofqual fine it, under this amendment? Is that how she envisages the amendment working?

Mary Creagh: In an ideal world, yes, but in the real world it would be bizarre for the public purse, which pays for the QCA, to be fined by a regulator and for that money to re-enter the public purse. That circularity would militate against it, although I acknowledge that the case that the hon. Gentleman raised caused enormous distress and stress to many learners. I am glad that my right hon. and hon. Friends took appropriate action.
The amendment would put in place a failure-free system. Interestingly, we were talking about other potential awarding organisations, such as Flybe, which, like all airline companies, is a failure-free organisation. Every day, they cannot take the risk of something going slightly wrong with a plane that could have catastrophic consequences for the pilot, crew and passengers, as well as, obviously, their business. Failure-free organisations are now entering the learning environment and, perhaps, passing on some of their quality and assurance systems to the development of qualifications for learners in their companies.
The mere existence of the power to fine will influence the behaviour of those that Ofqual regulates, which can only be to the benefit of learners. As the hon. Member for Yeovil said, it would be an intermediate stepa sanction falling short of the more serious one of removing recognition of the awarding body. The ultimate step would be to prevent it from awarding recognised qualifications, which, of course, could be damaging to learners past and present. We never want somebody to receive a qualification from an awarding body that then is no longer allowed to give them out. By implication, that would devalue past awards.
The ability to fine is a sign of a robust regulator. It would force organisations to think twice before taking measures that could impact on the learner. Most measures tend to relate to doing things cheaper, faster andsupposedlybetter. However, we know that cheaper and faster is not always better, either for the learner or the exams and tests being marked. We hope that Ofqual will co-operate with organisations, but as the hon. Gentleman saidI am sorry that he is not here to hear my response to his eloquent outlining of his amendmentthere would be risks. We would need to be confident that a fine would not result in fee increases. Most exam fees are paid for out of the public purse by public bodies, such as schools, colleges and so on, and we do not want fee increases to be passed on to the learner, so I understand the Governments reluctance.
Ofqual would need to set out its own sanctions policy and ensure that any fines levied are proportionate. It would also need to reflect the changes to the qualifications made by this Bill, because, as we have heard, a wider range of organisations could be recognised in the future to award qualifications. For example, I would not want a fine to jeopardise the existence of a charity. I must declare a past interest as a board member of Rathbone Training for seven years. I hope that the time would come when it could, as a large national charity providing life skills training, develop its own qualifications. However, if something went wrong and a fine was imposed, we could not jeopardise the charitys existence. In any fine-imposition regime we would therefore need to separate off the amount of money generated by the qualifications and protecting the rest of the organisation which, in Rathbones case, is delivering skills and learning.
I have spoken about the 14-to-19 work that my local West Yorkshire fire service is doing with young people in local schools such as Wakefield City high school and across the region. To go back to equivalence, which is the bugbear of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, that is the equivalent of GCSEs or level 1 qualifications. We cannot have a fire service being fined for a failure in its qualification awards. We cannot jeopardise the future of the fire cover service in Wakefield because there may have been catastrophic errors on behalf of the awarding body. I am also keen to ensure that this new power does not stifle innovation or lead to conservativewith a small corganisations or encourage bodies to be risk-averse. On that note, I would like the Minister to respond and I stress that it is a probing amendment.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I shall first address amendment 8, which seems a long time ago, as we have moved on. I hope be able to reassure the hon. Gentleman. His amendment is intended to allow Ofqual to direct an awarding body in relation to the setting of standards if that body is failing, or likely to fail, to comply with a condition and that failure would be prejudicial. However, clause 144(2) already gives Ofqual the power to direct a recognised body in the way that the amendment intends because it states:
Ofqual may direct the recognised body to take or refrain from taking specified steps with a view to securing compliance with the condition.
That includes the power to direct a recognised body to set the standards in a specified qualification on a specified occasion at a specified level in order to secure compliance with a condition. The amendment seeks to address concerns that we have considered. We agree with them and have dealt with them in the Bill.
Some concern has been expressed, in particular by Dr. Mike Cresswell, director general of the AQA, whose comments were mentioned by the hon. Member for Yeovil, that the powers of Ofqual will not allow it to maintain standards. I shall put on record once again the Governments absolute intention that Ofqual will have the powers it needs and our confidence that the Bill will give it those powers. For example, Ofqual could set a condition requiring those awarding bodies offering GCSEs and A-levels to work together to ensure consistency of standards, to notify Ofqual by a specified date where there are problems with agreeing the standard and to accept Ofquals judgment about that standard in that event.
There can be no doubt that Ofqual has the powers to set such a condition, not least because its first objective is the qualification standards objective. It has the power to direct if those conditions are not met. Parliament will hold Ofqual to account in relation to its effectiveness in securing that recognised bodies comply with conditions of recognition and directions given to it under this section. As the Bill stands, Ofqual will have robust powers to direct recognised bodies where necessary, including on standards. I hope that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman on that account.
With regard to amendment 559, I am well aware of the request made to us by Ofqual. It has made it clear on numerous occasions that it wants the power to finewe had this in evidence from earlier sittings and in conversations with, and correspondence from, the chair of Ofqual. I understand why it needs to have this. I have listened carefully to both the hon. Member for Yeovil and my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and I undertake to the Committee to reflect on that. I ask my hon. Friend to withdraw the amendment on that basis because, as she acknowledged herself, it is not perfect and there is more work to do, not least the talks that we will have to have with the awarding bodies and with Ofqual, with whom we will discuss how it thinks it might, and how we think that it should, use that power.
The hon. Member for Yeovil asked about the fining powers of other regulators. I do not have examples to hand but I think all of them have used their fining powers at some point. We will certainly take that into account when we consider it further.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister for her undertaking to reflect on the matter and to include a discussion on the awarding bodies. It is right that if such a measure is to be introduced, they should have a chance to respond. The Minister is clearly minded to look at this seriously, but obviously she still has some reservations. However, will she put on the record today the concerns and reservations that the Government have about granting the power? They are still considering it and did not put it in the original Bill.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It was the fact that the awarding bodies did not feel that the power was necessary, and the effect that it might have on exam fee increases and issues such as that. That is why we wish to reflect on it further. It would be better if we could get a consensus from the awarding bodies and Ofqual that the power would be used only if absolutely necessary. That is the issue that we will reflect on. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members to withdraw their amendment.

David Laws: I am grateful to the Minister. She gave a very clear exposition of the position on amendment 8 and a clear reassurance that the Bill already has those powers. She also gave a helpful response to amendment 559. I hope that the Government will now go and talk to the awarding bodies and bring back some sensible proposals. We should all accept that it is very difficult to expect enthusiasm from any body or organisation that is being invited to discuss whether it should be fined. If any rational organisation were asked whether it wished to be fined or have a body given powers to fine it, it would be likely to say no. It is important that the awarding bodies are consulted, but ultimately the Government must decide and pay due heed to Ofquals concerns that it needs to be an effective regulator.

Mary Creagh: I am grateful to the Minister for her response. It is no surprise to me that the awarding bodies were not in favour of the measure, but I think that there is a case to be made for the new power. We have discussed separating the qualification awarding activity, which gives protection to charitable and commercial organisations. But I am reassured and I look forward to debating this further on Report.

David Laws: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 144 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 145

Power to withdraw recognition

Amendments made: 482, in clause 145, page 81, line 38, at end insert awarded or authenticated by the body.

This amendment is intended to ensure that clause 145(2) (which relates to withdrawal of recognition) applies fully to the situation where the body is recognised to award or authenticate credits in respect of components of qualifications.
Amendment 483, in clause 145, page 82, line 17, leave out a person and insert 
(i) an individual.

This amendment and amendment 484 clarify that review arrangements made under clause 145 may provide for decisions on a review to be made either by an individual who is not a member of Ofqual or its staff or by a body none of whose members is such a person.
Amendment 484, in clause 145, page 82, line 18, at end insert , or
(ii) a body none of whose members is a member of Ofqual or Ofquals staff..(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 483.

Clause 145, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 146

Qualifications regulatory framework

Amendments made: 485, in clause 146, page 82, line 24, leave out regulated qualifications and insert qualifications in respect of which they are recognised.

This technical drafting amendment is one of the changes described in the Members explanatory statement for amendment 431. The amendment clarifies that the qualifications to which Ofquals guidance refers are those that a recognised body awards or authenticates.
Amendment 300, in clause 146, page 82, line 38, leave out from time to time.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 290.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Government new clause 24Duty not to impose or maintain unnecessary burdens.
New clause 22Achievement and attainment tables
Ofqual shall set and publish the criteria and indicators, including those for the allocation of credit ratings, which shall be used for the allocation of qualifications contained within achievement and attainment tables published by the Secretary of State..

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: New clause 24 will impose a duty on Ofqual not to impose or maintain unnecessary regulatory burdens. The clause is similar in effect to section 72 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, which imposes almost identical duties on a range of regulators such as the Office of Rail Regulation and the Postal Services Commission.
That sits alongside the other provisions in the Bill that require Ofqual to perform its functions efficiently and effectively and to review its committee structures at least every five years. Ofqual will also need to observe the Governments five key principles of good regulation: that any regulatory activity should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases when action is needed.
Turning to the different subject matter of new clause 22, I am sympathetic to the thinking behind it. It will be entirely appropriate for Ofqual to have a role in looking at how qualifications are scored for the purposes of the Governments achievement and attainment tables. That will help to develop confidence in the objectivity of the scoring judgments. It will be related to its duties under clauses 139 and 140 in relation to the assignment of guided learning hours to qualifications for the purposes of determining whether qualifications are sufficient to meet the duty to participate in education and training under the Education and Skills Act 2008. However, we should not put the provisions in legislation and there is no need to do so because achievement and attainment tables are not statutory, and it would be inappropriate to make them so. I am sure that the Committee will be aware that we are reviewing them in the light of our proposals to develop a school report card. Our consultation on that proposal finished recently and we are reviewing the responses. In the light of those responses, we will discuss with interim Ofqual what the role of Ofqual and, if appropriate, that of QCDA, should be in the new arrangements that we are making for providing information about school performance. We do not need to put such provisions in the Bill because, as it stands, it will allow Ofqual to undertake the activity if requested to do so by the Secretary of State. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

David Laws: I was temporarily excited that the Minister was about to accept my new clause, but she then went on to give a long set of reasons why she would not. Nevertheless, it was a constructive set of reasons and, if I can extract a modest victory from her speech, there was clearly some sympathy towards the intention of new clause 22, so I do not need to press the matter further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 146, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 147 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 148

Co-operation and joint working

Amendment made: 486, in clause 148, page 83, line 17, after of insert any of.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

This technical amendment and amendment 489 clarify that where the Bill makes provision about the performance by Ofqual of its qualifications functions the intention is to catch the performance of any of those functions and not just the performance of all of them.

Clause 148, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 149

Power to provide information to other qualifications regulators

Amendments made: 487, in clause 149, page 83, line 24, leave out another and insert a.

This amendment and amendment 488 are technical drafting amendments, clarifying that Ofqual itself is not a qualifications regulator within the meaning given to that term by clause 149(2)(a).
Amendment 488, in clause 149, page 83, line 26, leave out other.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 487.
Amendment 489, in clause 149, page 83, line 32, leave out a qualifications function and insert any of the qualifications functions.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 486.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister set out what types of information the clause will allow Ofqual to share with the other qualifications regulators? I presume that, by other qualifications regulators, she means those in other parts of the United Kingdom.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Clause 148 allowed Ofqual to work with other public bodies. This clause allows Ofqual to provide information to qualifications regulators elsewhere in the United Kingdom, exactly as the hon. Gentleman suggested, to support the qualifications functions of the other regulator. For example, if the regulator in Wales wanted information about a particular qualification that was regulated by Ofqual so it could consider whether it should be regulated in Wales, the clause would allow Ofqual to supply that information.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 149, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 150 and 151 ordered to stand part of the Bill..

Clause 152

EYFS assessment arrangements: duty to consult Ofqual etc.

Question proposed,That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Annette Brooke: I probably should have asked this question when we discussed an earlier clause, but I was distracted by this mornings excitement. I do not really know what early years foundation stage assessment arrangements are, but it would be alarming for formal assessment to be put in statute as far as that stage is concerned. Will the Minister offer reassurance that there is not going to be even more prescriptiveness and targets introduced to the early years foundation stage?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The early years foundation stage is a play-based early learning framework designed to help teachers and professionals in all schools, nurseries, out-of-school clubs and child-minding provision, working with children from birth to five to give them the best possible start. There are no formal courses or lessons or any prescription in terms of what providers do in their day-to-day practice. The Secretary of State sets arrangements for assessment of the early learning goals, and Ofqual will have a statutory duty to monitor and report on whatever arrangements are made by the Government for assessing the early years foundation stage.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am still not entirely clear. The provisions seem to be an Open Sesame to turn what are currently just aspirational goals into statutory goals. I would like more clarification, by letter if necessary.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I will write to the hon. Lady about the possible processes for the assessment of early years foundations stage.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister confirm that all early years settings are required to complete early years foundation stage profiles, and that the concerns voiced by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole are therefore justified?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: There is nothing new in the clause as the issue is covered by the 2006 Act. I will, however, write to the hon. Lady to clarify.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 152accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 153

Review of regulated assessment arrangements

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 380, in clause 153, page 85, line 38, at end add
(3) Ofqual must keep under review the process of developing NC assessment arrangements with a view to ensuring that the academic standard of NC assessments is maintained..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 382, in clause 153, page 85, line 38, at end add
(3) Ofqual must keep under review the process of developing and implementing NC assessment arrangements with a view to ensuring that NC assessments are delivered in a timely and orderly fashion..
Amendment 384, in clause 155, page 86, line 45, at end add
(4) If it appears to Ofqual that there is, or is likely to be, a significant failing in NC assessment arrangements it must produce a public statement as soon as is practicable which specifies
(a) the nature of the failing, and
(b) the reasons for the occurrence of the failing, and
(c) the actions it intends to take to rectify the failing..
Amendment 381, in clause 156, page 87, line 6, after (1), insert
including a description of how it intends to maintain the academic standard of NC assessments.

Nick Gibb: The clause relates to the administration of the national curriculum tests and the early years foundation stage profiles. The explanatory notes state that the arrangements under chapter 3 are intended to
strengthen the assessment system, and to help improve public confidence following the problems with delivery of NC tests in 2008.
Those problems were colossal. On 16 December 2008, the Secretary of State told the House:
The delivery of this summers national curriculum tests for 11 and 14-year-olds was a shambles.
During the same debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) said:
The Sutherland report is an epic catalogue of incompetence, inefficiency and blinkered inactivity in the delivery of a vital public service. It paints an unremittingly depressing picture of the fiasco that was this years national curriculum test process.[Official Report, 16 December 2008; Vol. 485, c. 991-94.]
The Sutherland report was published on 16 December 2008 and stated:
The events of this summer also represent a failure on the part of one of the Governments Non-Departmental Public Bodies, the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA), to deliver its remit.
It went on to note:
The QCA Board had insufficient oversight of the management and risks associated with the delivery of its biggest contract,
and that
neither NAA senior personnel, the QCA Executive, or QCA Board appear to have assessed the mounting risks appropriately.
The QCA board announced that its chief executive, Dr. Ken Boston, and the National Assessment Agencys managing director, David Gee, had both been suspended pending a full inquiry into Lord Sutherlands findings. Will the Minister tell us when the full board of inquiry into Lord Sutherlands findings will be completed and the report published? Can she confirm whether Ken Boston and David Gee are still suspended and whether they are on full pay?
The Sutherland inquiry made several important recommendations that the Government have accepted. One key recommendation states:
The forthcoming legislation to establish Ofqual should ensure that it is given statutory powers to regulate the quality and delivery of National Curriculum tests, and clearly sets out reporting lines.
That is on page 9 of the report. That is the purpose behind a number of the clauses in this part of the Bill. My concern relates to the issue of quality as well as delivery. Amendment 380 requires Ofqual not just to review all aspects of national curriculum assessment arrangements, but to ensure that the academic standards of national curriculum assessments are maintained. Amendment 382 seeks to implement the recommendation in the Sutherland report that
The test delivery process and timetable should be designed to allow for maximum marking time and capacity
Amendment 382 requires Ofqual to monitor the assessment arrangements to ensure that tests are delivered in a timely and orderly fashion. Amendment 384 requires Ofqual to make a public statement as soon as practicable if there is likely to be a significant failing in the delivery of national curriculum tests. It amends clause 155, which requires notification to be given only to the Secretary of State. That should be more widely publicised. Amendment 381 amends clause 156 and it is intended to ensure that the document that Ofqual is required to publish also sets out how it intends to maintain the academic standards of the national curriculum tests. These are sensible amendments designed to ensure efficiency, timeliness and rigour. I am sure therefore that the Minister will find it easy to accept all four of them.

David Laws: I shall be brief, because the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton has already made a good case for his amendments. They are clearly topical in the light of the key stage testing and marking shambles last year which he described in his opening comments. I simply add two questions that I hope the Minister can address. Has Ofqual carried out any further assessment of the quality of key stage test marking last year? Has any evaluation that it has carried out supported the assertion that it made fairly soon after the key stage test shambles first emerged that the quality of marking last year was as good as in previous years?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I think I shall begin by confirming what clause 153 requires. Ofqual must keep all aspects of national curriculum and early years foundation stage assessments under review. The reasons why Ofqual is required to do this are, by definition, to fulfil its objectives. There are two objectives that are relevant here. One is the assessments standards objective, which requires Ofqual to promote consistent and reliable assessments. The other is the objective to promote public confidence in assessments. Clearly a key part of public confidence is that assessments are delivered in a timely and orderly fashion: if there are problems or delays, as I am afraid we saw last summer, public confidence will inevitably be dented.
Amendments 380 and 382 seek to guide Ofqual, in undertaking its reviews, to look particularly at standards and delivery of assessments. We agree that it should be looking at these things, but we do not need these amendments to achieve that, because the Bill already requires it to do that. It would not be fulfilling its statutory objectives if it did not. Amendment 384 seeks to amend clause 155. Clause 155 was inserted following a recommendation from Lord Sutherland report in December on last summers national curriculum test delivery problems.
If Ofqual considers that there is or is likely to be a significant failing in the assessment arrangements, the clause requires it to notify the Secretary of State and any other body that appears to have contributed to the failing. That duty ensures that, if Ofqual comes across problems with the arrangements, there is no ambiguity about the responsibility to report them to the Secretary of State, which will improve the chances of any future problems being identified early to maximise the prospect of them being dealt with. In similar circumstances, amendment 384 would require Ofqual to produce a public statement as soon as is practicable, which should specify the nature of the failing, why it occurred and the actions that Ofqual intends to take to rectify it.
The Bill will, of course, allow Ofqual to choose to make a public statement about its concerns, but it will equally give it the discretion not to do so. It may be entirely appropriate for it to decide not to say anything publicly; it may want to give QCDA, or the Secretary of State, an opportunity to rectify problems before talking about them publicly, to avoid damaging public confidence in the arrangements. If Ofqual thinks it spots smoke, that does not always mean that there is fire. It should have the discretion to check whether something really is burning before deciding whether it would be in the public interest to alarm people. I am concerned that the amendment would inhibit Ofquals ability to be an effective regulator.
The amendment would require Ofqual to report what actions it was taking to rectify failings, but if it finds a problem, it will not be Ofquals job to tackle it. Ofqual is the regulator, its role is to monitor and report, not to do. If Ofqual was asked to take responsibility for some aspect of delivery, it could not be an objective observer reporting on that process, and it would blur the lines of accountability for delivery, which, as Lord Sutherland found in his report, are important to have clear. Therefore, if Ofqual chose to report a problem, it might report, for example, what QCDA was doing about it and give its judgement about whether that was sufficient, but it should not be asked to report on what it was doing itself, which the amendment suggests.
Amendment 381 would amend clause 156, which requires Ofqual to publish and keep under regular review a national curriculum assessments regulatory framework. That framework must describe how Ofqual intends to keep all aspects of the national curriculum assessment arrangements under review and to give guidance to bodies with responsibilities for the development, implementation and monitoring of national curriculum assessment arrangements on how to perform their functions.
Amendment 381 proposes that that document should also include a description of how Ofqual intends to maintain the academic standards of national curriculum assessments. A similar point to the one I have just made applies here. Ofqual is the regulator. It is Ofquals responsibility to set out, through the regulatory framework, how the QCDA, and other bodies responsible for delivering assessments, should maintain standards. It is also Ofquals responsibility to monitor and report on whether standards are being maintained. As regulator, Ofqual cannot be responsible for maintaining standards; only those who are delivering the assessments can do that.
I entirely agree with the thinking behind the amendment, which is that maintaining standards should be at the core of Ofquals regulation of assessments. That is why promoting assessment standards is one of Ofquals objectives. Due to that objective, Ofqual will have to make maintaining standards one of the key aspects of the framework, but it does not need the amendment to do that.
The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions, which I shall answer. The Government responded to the Sutherland report in February. We hope to be able to announce the QCA inquiry soon, but we need to allow the QCA board to go through the due process. Ofqual published its conclusions on key stage 2 last week.

David Laws: Will the Minister tell the Committee whether the conclusions were that the quality of the key stage test marking in 2008 was as good as in previous years?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The statement made by Ofqual was that the quality of marking in 2008 was at least as good as in previous years.

Nick Gibb: Will the Minister confirm whether Ken Boston and David Gee are still suspended and whether they are on full pay, or have they moved on?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: They are still suspended and are still on full pay.

Nick Gibb: I think that the public will be interested in that final answer.
I was slightly disappointed by the Ministers response to the amendments. I understand her point on reporting what action Ofqual will take in tackling a problem with the QCDA, but one of the activities that could be reported is a direction to the QCDA. That could be regarded as activity as well as sorting out the problem. None the less, I take on board her point.
I was disappointed by her response to amendment 380 on standards. If she was as serious about maintaining and raising standards as Conservative Members, she would not have a problem with accepting the amendment, notwithstanding that it might be regarded as otiose if it is implicit elsewhere in the Bill that Ofqual has a duty to maintain standards. Standards are so important that they cannot be understated in any legislation. I will therefore press the amendment to test whether the Committee is as serious as Conservative Members about maintaining and raising academic standards in our schools.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 153 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 154 and 155 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 156

NC assessments regulatory framework

Amendment made: 301, in clause 156, page 87, line 10, leave out from time to time.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 290.

Clause 156, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 157

EYFS assessments regulatory framework

Amendment made: 302, in clause 157, page 87, line 29, leave out from time to time.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 290.

Clause 157, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 158 to 161 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming
[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]

Clause 162

Annual and other reports

David Laws: I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 162, page 88, line 37, at end insert
and the extent to which it met objectives..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 70, in clause 162, page 88, line 37, at end insert
how it performed in relation to its objectives, what its assessment is of changes in educational standards and performance since its last report, and how English educational standards and performance compare with those in other developed countries..
Amendment 33, in clause 162, page 89, line 8, at end insert
(4A) No recommendations contained in the report referred to in subsection (4) shall be implemented unless the report has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament..
Amendment 556, in clause 162, page 89, line 22, at end insert
(9) Ofqual shall, before each financial year, publish a document (the forward work programme) containing a description of the main activities which it plans to undertake during the year and how these activities are intended to meet its objectives.
(10) Before publishing the forward work programme for any year, Ofqual shall give a notice
(a) containing a draft of the forward work programme, and
(b) specifying the time within which representations or objections to the proposals contained in it may be made,
and shall consider any representations or objections which are made under paragraph (b)..

David Laws: Thank you, Mr. Chope, and welcome back to the chair. I hope that you are suitably impressed with the rapid rate of progress since you were last in itperhaps not quite as rapid as some might have wished, but in any case, we are further on than we were last time
The clause deals with the annual reports that will have to be produced by Ofqual, and we have tabled amendments 7, 70 and 556. Amendment 7 would change subsection (2) to ensure that Ofqual would be required to define specific and measurable success criteria for its objectives. As it stands, the subsection does not make it clear that there should be a specific comparison and assessment of its performance in that period of time against the objectives set for the organisation. With many governmental bodies in the past decade or so, there has been has been an expectation that annual reports will make a rigorous attempt to evaluate whether the performance targets that the body has been given have been met. We have discussed in relation to other clauses what Ofquals objectives will be and the need for some measurable process to assess whether it is meeting them. It is therefore entirely sensible to invite the Government to consider whether that assessment should be part of the annual report.
Amendment 70 seeks further to flesh out what the annual report must contain. It would indicate that the report must not only state how Ofqual has performed its functions in the reporting period and how it performed in relation to its objectives, but give an assessment of changes in educational standards and performance since the last report. The report would therefore have to give a sense of how standards are changing over time.
Importantly, the amendment would require Ofqual to make an assessment of
how English educational standards and performance compare with those in other developed countries.
Given the considerable scepticism about the changes in standards that we have seen in the past 10 or 20 years as measured by qualifications, there has been an increasing focus on how the English education system is performing in relation to those of other countries. Indeed, international surveys that seek to give some insight into the English system and to compare it with other education systems are released periodically. Given the debates within the UK and England on how our educational standards are changing, and that Governments want to know whether their investments in education are paying off, making comparisons with other countries is potentially extremely valuable, both as a benchmark for understanding whether the results of public examinations actually reflect changes in standards, and so that we can say whether we are getting value for money from our education system.
Amendment 556 would introduce new subsections (9) and (10) to the clause. It would ensure a more rigorous process for Ofquals reporting structure and performance measurement. It states:
Ofqual shall, before each financial year, publish a document
that represents the
forward work programme
and contains
a description of the main activities which it plans to undertake during the year and how these activities are intended to meet its objectives.
The forward work programme would ensure that schools, colleges, qualification providers, the media and parliamentarians clearly understand what Ofquals priorities are each year, and that it can plan its qualifications accordingly. One issue that we discussed earlier and in previous sittings is the need for some coherence on the timeliness of what Ofqual does, to ensure that other organisations are informed in good time of Ofquals plans and priorities and that they are not wrong-footed by initiatives that take place at very short notice, without an ability to have an input.
Of course, a forward work programme would also provide checks and balances for Ofquals activities and allow for greater scrutiny of, and accountability for, its performance. We think that all the measures in amendments 556, 7 and 70 ought to be welcomed by the Government, and that they are consistent with their strategy in the Bill.

Nick Gibb: It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Chope, after a short absence.
Clause 162 will require Ofqual to publish an annual report as soon as is practicable after the end of each reporting period. The explanatory note says that that report must be laid before Parliament. Our amendment 33 says that no recommendation contained in that report shall be implemented unless the report has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. It is trying to echo the affirmative resolution statutory instrument procedure that we have in the House to ensure that the annual report is debated. It is all very well laying a report before Parliament, but we need to be sure that it is debated in the House.
I know that we are not permitted in legislation to require the House of Commons to do anything. To get around that convention we have tabled an amendment requiring any recommendations to be debated in both Houses, the reason being that Ofquals maintenance of standards is important to the public, higher education and employers. Unless the annual report of Ofqual is scrutinised in this place, I believe that we would be failing in our duty to ensure that those standards are being maintained. That would be an important annual parliamentary event, to ensure that our standards are maintained, and certainly a key priority for Conservative Members. That is why we are sympathetic to amendment 70, which states that changes in standards should be compared with those in other developed countries.
We tabled a similar amendment requiring a benchmark comparison with similar qualifications abroad. That is our partys policy. If we were to win the next election, we would have an official link requiring our examinations to be compared with those in other countries. There is a concern that our qualifications have drifted downwards compared with many international qualifications that have not gone down the modular route or reduced the knowledge content. It is interesting to note the popularity of qualifications such as the international GCSE, which is very popular abroad but the Government will not allow in state schools in this country for fear of creating a two-tier examination system. The truth is that we have a two-tier system in this country. We have a system whereby the independent sector is allowed to teach and examine using the IGCSE, but state schools are not permittedor are certainly not fundedto teach it. That has an effect of not providing a competitor exam to the GCSE, which over the past 10 years has been chipped away by the QCA and the Government so that its standards are very different from those of the IGCSE, even though they started out in a similar position when they were split.
Without taking up any more of the Committees time, I think that we should debate this annual report in Parliament and the amendment provides a method by which the reports recommendations will be debated in this House and another place.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I, too, would like to welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Chope.
Amendments 7 and 70 would require Ofqual to include in its annual report material on the extent to which it has met its objectives. Amendment 70I think we have said this beforesays that one feature of the standards objective on which Ofqual must report is educational standards and performance, including comparison with other countries. I readily agree that Ofqual will need to report achievement of its statutory objectives, a key feature of its accountability. I know that Ofqual in its interim form agrees with this and is planning to identify measurable success criteria and report on them, including in its annual report.
I asked Ofqual on Tuesday to write to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I can confirm that Kathleen Tattersall will be writing, as committed, on setting measurable objectives. I do not think it is necessary to include the detailed requirement in legislation. Ofqual will be accountable to Parliament and the Select Committees will no doubt put in place arrangements for scrutinising Ofquals work and assessing what it has achieved. Ofqual will have to put in place some exacting success measures by which its performance can be assessed.

Jeff Ennis: Welcome back to the Chair, Mr. Chope. The Minister will recall that I pursued the issue of reporting mechanisms to Parliament during the evidence sessions because the reporting process is crucial for the work carried out by Ofqual. The presentation of the annual report to Parliament is going to be important in how we deal with that. As I said at the evidence session, I favour a repeat system for Ofqual, such as the one that the Select Committees adopt for Ofsted. They scrutinise the annual report when it is first presented publicly. Later in the yearmaybe five or six months laterthere is another presentation from Ofsted, not just to look at the outcomes from the annual report, but to go over any other issues that may have cropped up in the intervening period.

Joan Humble: Order. Is this a speech or an intervention?

Jeff Ennis: It is an intervention, I just wanted to

Joan Humble: It is already too long for an intervention, so we will leave it at that. It is open to the hon. Gentleman to come back and make a speech later if he wants to.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I will try and second-guess what the crumbs of comfort were that my hon. Friend was asking for, with the caveat that it is, of course, a matter for Parliament, not Government, to decide how Ofqual will report. We would expect the relevant Select Committees to play a key role, as they do with Ofsted, and I would imagine that they would want to use the same mechanisms.
As I mentioned, the Government are also planning to ask Ofqual to consider commissioning an independent review of the reforms to qualifications regulation after three years, in order to assess what they have achieved. If Ofqual agrees to that, it will need to decide what performance measures to set to enable that review to report meaningfully. It is not good practice to specify such detailed requirements on the face of the Bill. The danger of prescription is twofold. First, when Ofqual reports, it would focus only on the requirements in the Bill, rather than considering carefully and discussing with the Select Committees what would be most appropriate for it to report on each year. Secondly, the Bill is not future-proof. In five or 10 years, the expectations of Ofqual may have moved on and our successors may want it to report on different things. Comparing the current Bill with the Education Act 1997, which established the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority, shows how far expectations change. Rather than buttoning things down in legislation, we want to ensure that we have robust processes in place to hold Ofqual to account and to ensure that its work is transparent. We believe that that is what is in the Bill.
Amendment 70 reflects the view of last years report by the Children, Schools and Families Committee that measuring standards is the primary function of the regulator. I need to emphasise that we have discussed similar amendments and that the Government disagree with that view. A key rolearguably the single most important role for Ofqualwill be to keep the height of the hurdle constant from year to year. That is not easy as curricula and qualifications change, as they must, but that is the reassurance that we need. Ofqual must be able to focus on that task and not be distracted by wider questions about standards. It should be unconcerned with how many people can jump the hurdle; that is the job of the Government as they pursue policies that improve the quality of teaching and learning, safe in the knowledge that those improvements will be reflected properly and credibly in the form of better results and qualifications in assessments.

David Laws: I appreciate the Ministers views and the views of the Government, but she will be aware that information is already regularly made available, on a comparative basis, on educational performance in different countries. Ministers are often inclined to comment on that. Would it be more sensible if we allowed the independent regulator, Ofqual, to make those judgments and comments and to take that responsibility away from Ministers, who will naturally be concerned about independence?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: There is nothing in the Bill that prevents Ofqual from reporting on qualifications in other countries. The primary function of Ofqualthe clue is in the name: Office of Qualifications and Examinations Regulationis to regulate qualifications and assessments, not to measure standards. Giving Ofqual the role of measuring standards across the education system and forcing it to engage in endless debates about standards, would distract it from its core role and make its job unmanageable. Both Dr. Mike Cresswell, from AQA, and Kathleen Tattersall, the chair of interim Ofqual, made those points in the evidence session.
Amendment 33 would require Ofqual to have any recommendation in its annual report approved by each House of Parliament before it could implement them. As I have said, we expect that the relevant Select Committees will play a key role in holding Ofqual to account, as the Children, Schools and Families Committee does with Ofsted.
Similarly, we would expect the Select Committees to scrutinise Ofquals annual report and to discuss the implementation of any recommendations with the chief regulator. However, as far as I knowthe hon. Member for Yeovil can correct me if he has any more evidenceit would be unprecedented for a Department to have its detailed business plan approved by Parliament. That would risk undermining the proper governance and accountability relationship between Ofqual and Parliament. Parliament, principally through the relevant Select Committees, should be responsible for holding Ofqual to account for the delivery of its objectives, but Ofqual must have the discretion to decide how best to achieve those objectives.

Nick Gibb: Does the Minister recall the statement about Ofqual by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the right hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls)? He said:
It is an independent regulator of standards, it is independent of Ministers and it reports directly to Parliament.[Official Report, 23 February 2009; Vol. 488, c. 27.]
That is the essence of the amendment: to enable Ofqual to report directly to Parliament. It is not about the Ministers programme of work.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It is for Parliament to decide how that reporting happens. My point is that government is government, and we would hope that Parliament would use the Select Committee mechanism. Presumably, Ofquals business plan would include the recommendations from its annual report. Parliament should not second-guess Ofquals judgments, because Ofqual would then be at risk of failing to achieve an objective because it did not attain approval from Parliament for something in its business plan.
Finally, amendment 556 would require Ofqual to publish for public consultation an annual work programme for the coming year. I sympathise with the general sentiment that Ofqual should be a regulator that works transparently and makes the effort to listen to the voices of a wide range of people with an interest in qualifications and assessment, including learners, business, higher education, schools and colleges, and the general public. Ofqual may want to publish an annual business plan or lay such a plan before Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, but I have concerns about the amendment similar to those about other amendments we have discussed.
As a matter of principle, we should avoid detailed prescription of how Ofqual does its business. Both the legislation and the ongoing accountability mechanisms should focus on what Ofqual achieveshow far it meets its objectivesand leave the detailed judgments about how to deliver to Ofqual itself. Ofqual needs to have powers to deliver, which the Bill provides, but it risks being a less effective organisationless able to be robust and to respond to eventsif it has to jump through hoops before it can act. So, let us trust Ofqual to regulate as effectively and transparently as possible, to consult as and how it needs to, and to answer to the Select Committees. As with all these amendmentsaccountability, yes; scrutiny, yes; measuring Ofquals impact, absolutely; but not through statutory requirements regarding how Ofqual goes about its business, which might constrain its ability to meet learners needs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

David Laws: I am grateful for that detailed response to this group of amendments. I think that we can agree on amendment 7, because the Minister made it very clear that she will expect Ofqual to define specific and measurable criteria for its objectives and report on them in its annual report. I am very satisfied with her response on that amendment, which she has put on the record.
However, I am afraid that I remain unconvinced by her response on amendments 70 and 556. Amendment 556 states that Ofqual should publish a forward work programme, which would allow for consultation from outside groups, allowing people to know what Ofqual was looking at and input their views. The Ministers response was that we do not want to give Ofqual too many responsibilities and be too prescriptive. I remind her that schedule 11 on page 192 of the Bill, which we debated a couple of days ago, insists that Ofqual should review the structures of its committees on a particular timetable. If the Government, and hence the Minister, are going to be so prescriptive as to insist that Ofqual manage its committee structures in a particular way, and prescribe precisely how often it should review those structures, surely the Minister should be willing to do something far more important, and insist that Ofqual set out its forward work programme.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that a requirement to review the committees every five years does not necessarily mean that it has to change anything, but that it has to check that it is right? That is not the same as the micro-management to which he has referred.

David Laws: No, I will not accept that. I suggest, without wishing to revisit a previous debate, that how Ofqual reviews whether to keep the structure and scope of its committees is exactly the kind of issue that it should have responsibility for. Any chief executive or management group within Ofqual who are not capable of that, frankly, would not be fit for the job.
Amendment 556 sets out precisely the type of requirements in which the Government should be interested, such as the responsibility for Ofqual to have a forward programme of work that allows other organisations to engage with it. Again, we are finding inconsistencies in how the Government are framing the legislation, with micro-management in areas in which they have no business micro-managing; and some duties that should be placed on those bodies are not in the Bill.
I was also disappointed, but not completely surprised, by the Ministers response on amendment 70. I know that the Government are reticent to make Ofqual what it was originally advertised to bea genuine watchdog that can comment on standards, and end the endless debates that occur every August and throughout the year on whether there has been dumbing down or standards have been maintained. It is surprising and disappointing that Ofqual should not even be able to make international comparisons, and that it is not encouraged to be the body that makes assessments about the international surveys, which already take place, and draws conclusions that might not only be relevant to general observations about standards in English education, but be regarded as a legitimate cross-check for the qualifications it is supposed to regulate. I was amazed when the Minister said that she did not want to force Ofqual to engage in endless debates about standards, and I think that that was from her written comments, rather than an ad lib. If Ofqual is not going to be at the centre of the endless debate about standards, it will clearly fail to do the job that it needs to do and that, in many senses, the Government have sold it as doing in the media.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: At the risk of returning to a previous debate, does the hon. Gentleman accept that we are talking about the standard of qualifications, which Ofqual does have powers to look at, rather than standards across the wider education system as a whole, which it does not have powers to look at?

David Laws: I accept that that is the narrow way in which the Government want to define Ofquals responsibilities and that our views differ on that, which is part of what the debate is about. However, I am also inviting the Minister to reflect on the fact that it is important for the Government to make comparisons with other countries, and judgments on standards and on whether the regulated qualifications are doing their job. It is important that there should be an independent body commenting on the available international evidence, which Ministers constantly use to justify their statements on educational standards. Ofqual is precisely qualified to do that job and it is somewhat disingenuous of the Minister to say that nothing prevents it from doing so, when clearly, everything that Ministers are saying implies that it should not tread in that area at all.
I am disappointed with the Ministers response on amendment 70, which confirms my fear that we are heading for a body that will have no credibility in the standards debate, will not be forced to engage in endless debates about standards and will not be able to make comparisons with international performance or objective assessments on what is happening with regard to the international surveys of education. It will essentially be a toothless regulator that will fail to do the most important job of making objective, credible and respected judgments about standards, which it should be able to do and which it has a responsibility for. I am, however, satisfied with the Ministers response on amendment 7 and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 70, in clause 162, page 88, line 37, at end insert
how it performed in relation to its objectives, what its assessment is of changes in educational standards and performance since its last report, and how English educational standards and performance compare with those in other developed countries..(Mr. Laws.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 162 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 163 and 164 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 166 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11

The Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency

David Laws: I beg to move amendment 144, in schedule 11, page 196, line 24, leave out Secretary of State and insert
Children, Schools and Families Committee of the House of Commons..
We have now finally gone past part 7, which dealt with Ofqual, so I shall try to get my initials right here. I congratulate the Minister on her patience in taking us through that. I note that she is still at the crease dealing with part 8 of the Bill on the QCDA. Schedule 11 considers and makes detailed provisions relating to the QCDA, particularly its constitution and proceedings. The QCDA will clearly be an extremely important body in its own right. It will not be a non-ministerial department as Ofqual was, but a non-departmental public body. Perhaps the Minister will say a few things about the distinction between the two in her opening comments. The Committee might find it useful to learn why the decision was taken to make the QCDA a non-departmental public body, rather than a non-ministerial Departmentshe will be aware that there are some concerns about the fact that there is that distinctionand whether the Bill gives it quite the independence from Government and from Ministers that it might be given.
The Opposition could perhaps be criticised for not having tabled more amendments on this subject to probe in more depth the relationship between the Government and the QCDA. We may want to return to that later. Amendment 144 deals with the accountability of the chief officer of the QCDA. According to schedule 11, the QCDA is to consist of between eight and 13 members who will all be appointed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must appoint one of the ordinary members to chair the QCDA. Paragraph 3(1) states:
The chief officer is to be appointed by the QCDA, on conditions of service determined by the QCDA.
Paragraph 3(2) states:
The appointment and conditions of service of the chief officer are subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
In the debate on Ofqual, we considered whether some accountability for these bodies should be to Parliament through Select Committees rather than directly to the Secretary of State. The Children, Schools and Families Committee has considered that point, as have other Select Committees. The amendment would delete Secretary of State and insert
Children, Schools and Families Committee of the House of Commons.
In other words, it would make the Select Committee rather than the Secretary of State responsible for approving the appointment and conditions of service of the chief officer of the QCDA.
Ofqual is a high-profile body with potentially an important job. There will be a lot of attention on whether it succeeds in resolving the standards debate. Because of that, there has been an inclination inside and outside Parliament to underestimate the importance of the QCDA. Its responsibilities are set out in the schedule, in later clauses and in the explanatory notes, which state:
The QCDA will retain the QCAs non-regulatory functions, including supporting Ministers on developing the curriculum and related qualifications and delivering National Curriculum tests.
It is an extremely important body and there are issues about its independence.
My party would feel much more comfortable and supported if there was accountability to Parliament, rather than all accountability being placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. After all, the Secretary of State has already been given significant powers over the QCDA, such as the power to appoint its members. We hope that the Minister will respond to those concerns.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: On the QCDA being a non-departmental public body, it will have the same status that the QCA currently has. It will continue to be the key source of expertise in supporting Ministers on the curriculum and related qualifications. It will continue to develop and deliver national curriculum tests. Ministers are quite rightly accountable to Parliament for the content of the curriculum and they will continue to need an expert body that offers robust advice on monitoring and developing the curriculum. As a non-departmental public body, it will be at arms length from Ministers rather than directly under their control. That is the relationship we want it to have: close to Ministers, but separate from them and able to provide expert advice.

David Laws: Will the Minister explain why the Government decided to make Ofqual a non-ministerial body and for the QCDA to be a non-departmental public body? What is the justification for the different treatment?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The difference is that Ofqual has a regulatory function whereas the QCDA is an advisory body.
The amendment proposes that the appointment and conditions of service of the chief officer of the QCDA should be subject to the approval of the Children, Schools and Families Committee rather than the Secretary of State. It is similar to amendment 57, which we debated on Tuesday, and which proposed that the appointment and conditions of service of the Ofqual chief executive should be approved by the Select Committee.
The amendment is problematic for two reasons. First, the QCDA is accountable to Parliament not directly, but via the Secretary of State. In fact, two Secretaries of State have an interest in its work. That accountability must be reflected in the responsibility for approving the appointment and conditions of service of the chief officer. I therefore have a problem with the amendment in principle. Secondly, it is not appropriate for a Select Committee to be responsible for approving the appointment and conditions of service of an employee of a public body that is part of Government. That is not the purpose of Select Committees and they do not have the structures to do it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing the amendment.

David Laws: I am disappointed, but not entirely surprised. As the Minister accurately said, to some extent we are rehearsing the arguments that we had in relation to Ofqual, where we also sought to involve Select Committees in that way. I therefore have the feeling that the Government are unlikely to be persuaded, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 500, in schedule 11, page 197, line 29, leave out paragraph (c).

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 498.
Amendment 307, in schedule 11, page 201, line 24, leave out this or any other and insert any.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 291.

Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 167

Objective

Nick Gibb: I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 167, page 90, line 31, leave out coherence and insert rigour.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 226, in clause 168, page 91, line 15, at end insert
(g) information provided to it by recognised awarding bodies..
Amendment 387, in clause 168, page 91, line 15, at end insert
(g) the desirability of promoting the acquisition of academic knowledge..
Amendment 386, in clause 168, page 91, line 21, at end insert
(d) persons whom, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, represent the interests of employers or institutions within the higher education sector..
Amendment 145, in clause 169, page 91, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
Amendment 388, in clause 170, page 92, line 12, at end insert
(c) must have regard to the importance of maintaining the rigour of academic qualifications..
Amendment 389, in clause 172, page 93, line 10, at end insert
(c) must have regard to the importance of maintaining the academic rigour of the curriculum..

Nick Gibb: Clause 167, which is probably the shortest one in the Bill, sets out what the QCDAs objectives should be. It says that:
The QCDAs objective is to promote quality and coherence in education and training in England.
I can understand quality, which we support. However, I do not understand the purpose of inserting the word coherence into education and training. Clearly, we do not want incoherence in education and training, but there is no need for it to be an ordered and coherent activity. The market should decidewhether that is within the state sector, or between the state and independent sector. The schools will decide what the education should be and parents should decide what type of education they want for their children. The more diverse the education system, the better, so that we can use best practice from all over the country and from all kinds of institutions.
I see no purpose in having the word coherence in the very short objective that is set out for the QCDA in the clause. Amendment 34 therefore seeks to leave out the word coherence and insert the word rigour because parents are seeking rigour from the education system. I do not want to rehearse the debates that we have already had in the Committee about trying to restore rigour and standards to our education system, our qualifications and our curriculum.
Amendment 387 inserts into clause 168, which concerns the general duties of QCDA, the phrase:
the desirability of promoting the acquisition of academic knowledge.
Again, I do not want to reprise our earlier discussions about the debate that there has been in this country between skills and knowledgethe idea that one can teach thinking, historic, or scientific skills in a disembodied way that is divorced from the knowledge being taught.
Over the past 10, 20 or 30 years, there has been a drift away from knowledge towards skills. Children are learning about chronology or data analysis in history, but very often they are failing to learn about the Saxons, the Romans, the middle ages and periods of history that are important to Britain, Europe and the world. The children may well have those esoteric skills, which I doubt that they will have acquired, but their knowledge of history is sketchy. I sat in on a lesson in a secondary school recently where they were learning about data analysis and intuiting the evidence. A portrait of Henry VII was displayed to the class, which were asked to intuit from that portrait things about Henry VII. The answers that the children were coming up with were that he was rich because he had a fur thing around his neck and that he was full of himself because he had all this gilt on his clothing, but that is an irrelevance. Nothing was said about his battle with the barons or the fact that he was actually short of money, hence all the problems that Henry VII suffered during his reign. That is not the way our education system should be going, but it is the way that it is travelling at the moment.
The purpose of amendment 387 is to insert into the objectives of the QCDA the desirability of promoting the acquisition of academic knowledge. No parent in this country would find that an odd objective to insertI am surprised that that objective is not already set out in the Bill.
Amendment 386 inserts a subsection (d) into clause 168:
persons whom, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, represent the interests of employers or institutions within the higher education sector.
That is a requirement to consult those people. Qualifications serve three purposesthey serve the students or people who take the tests, as our education systems serves them, but they also serve the users of qualifications, which are the institutions of higher education and employers. They need to be consulted when the QCDA is considering its work and the reforms that it is implementing in the curriculum.
Amendment 388 adds a subsection to clause 170, saying that the QCDA
must have regard to the importance of maintaining the rigour of academic qualification.
There is ample evidence, which I do not want to reprise in todays debate, that exam standards have declined in recent yearssuch as from the centre for evaluation and monitoring at Durham university, about how there has been grade inflation in most of the A-levels taken over the past 10 or 20 years.
Finally, amendment 389 adds a subsection to clause 172, saying again that the QCDA
must have regard to the importance of maintaining...academic rigour.
None of the amendments is terribly controversial. They are all amendments that the public would support. I hope that the Minister will be able to support them this evening.

David Laws: I am also interested in hearing the Government definition of coherence, when we come to the Ministers response to the hon. Gentlemans amendments.
I shall speak to amendments 226 and 145. I hope that amendment 226 will not prove too controversial and that the Minister will be able to reassure me in her response, because the amendment adds an additional element that QCDA must have regard to in pursuing its functionsinformation provided to it by the recognised awarding body. It is important for the QCDA to take into account the expertise and practical knowledge of the awarding bodies. I am sure that the Minister will say that she agrees with thatwe had a similar amendment on one of the clauses dealing with Ofquals responsibilities and the Minister was able to respond positively. I hope that she will be able to do so similarly on amendment 226.
Amendment 145 is probing, to find out more about the thinking of the Government on clause 169(1)(b), which makes some allowance for the QCDA potentially not to be taking a responsibility for some qualifications in the future. The explanatory notes say:
The Secretary of State is given the power by order to exclude qualifications from QCDAs remit
as is implied in clause 169
The order-making power is subject to the negative procedure. This provision is designed to allow for any future changes to the QCDAs role. The intention is that this power could be used in particular to remove the QCDAs functions in relation to vocational qualifications, if the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills were to conclude at a later date that it did not wish the QCDA to have advice and review functions with respect to these qualifications. Any such decision would not affect Ofquals role in regulating those qualifications.
I am interested to know why the Governmentthe two Departmentshave inserted that provision into the Bill and whether they think that it would be sensible in the future for vocational qualifications not to be part of the remit of the QCDA. I thought that it would be the Governments intention to include vocational qualifications and that there was concern that they should be treated differently from the range of academic qualifications. I hope that the hon. Lady can therefore enlighten us about why the measure has been inserted into the Bill and explain what consideration has already been given by her sister Department, DIUS, into whether the change should take place. Is there is a plan to use the exclusion power within the foreseeable future?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Amendment 34 would change QCDAs objectives from those of promoting quality and coherence to promoting quality and rigour, and I shall start by responding to the hon. Member for Yeovil. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines coherent as logical and consistent. Coherence is currently part of QCAs objective under the Education Act 1997 Act, so it is nothing new.

David Laws: Does coherence have any implication for the number of qualifications?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The coherent idea is that QCDA is not looking at curriculum and qualifications in isolation, but can look at them collectively to provide quality and rigorous learning programmes for young people. It is not QCDAs role to look at the number of qualifications.
Rigour is important, but it is intrinsic to quality so we do not need to identify it separately. Nor should we be losing the requirement to promote coherence.

Nick Gibb: Progressive educationalists believe that a quality education should not be rigorous and that it should be child-initiated learning in a loose and play-based way. That would not constitute rigour, but it could constitute quality.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: In my view, rigour is intrinsic to quality and we do not need to identify it separately. Coherence is important because, as I said, we want to make sure that collectively we have rigorous learning programmes for young peoplea point that we are capturing by coherence.
Amendments 387 to 389 would give QCDA additional general duties of having regard to academic knowledge, academic qualifications and academic rigour. I do not disagree that QCDA will have to have regard to such matters, but the Bill should not specify everything that it must have regard to. Those requirements are implicit under the Bill in its objective to promote quality and to have regard to the requirements of learners and higher education. QCDA could not deliver those objectives without ensuring academic rigour, so the amendments are not necessary.
Amendments 386 and 226 would require QCDA to have regard to information provided respectively by representatives of employers or the higher education sector and awarding bodies. In relation to amendment 386, QCDA already has a general duty to have regard to the requirements of employers and higher education under clause 168(2)(b) and (c). If there were specific representatives whose information the Secretary of State wished it to have particular regard to, he could direct it to do so under subsection (3)(c). The amendments are therefore not necessary.
Amendment 226 would require QCDA to have regard to information provided by awarding bodies. As I said, the Bill cannot specify everything that QCDA should have regard to and, of course, it will have listen to, and work with, awarding bodies as it drafts qualifications criteria and keep the qualifications system under review. If it did not do so, it could not do its job properly, which is why it does not need to be told to do so. There is no reason to single out under the Bill awarding bodies ahead of all the other organisations, including subject associations, with which QCDA will need to work.
Amendment 145 would remove the power of the Secretary of State to limit by order QCDAs remit in relation to qualifications. Its qualifications remit, as defined under clause 169, is broadly the same as that of Ofqual and covers qualifications awarded in England that are not higher education qualifications although, unlike Ofqual, QCDA will have no functions in Northern Ireland. That reflects the fact that Ministers might want advice from QCDA on any qualifications or types of qualifications that Ofqual regulates and, under clause 170, QCDA is under a duty to keep under review all qualifications within its remit.
As was announced last year, ministerial colleagues in DUIS will want to review, in due course, whether QCDA should have a long-term role advising on adult vocational qualifications. There are other bodies that have a role in those qualifications: sector skills councils look at the skills and qualifications needed in individual sectors of the economy and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills will look across the adult skills landscape. If the QCDA is also looking at adult qualifications, there is a risk of duplication with those other bodies. Therefore, if DIUS Ministers conclude that they do not want the QCDA to look at post-19 qualifications, subsection (2) allows them to remove vocational qualifications from its remit, and the QCDA would no longer be under a duty to keep those qualifications under review.
The amendment would prevent DIUS from rationalising the advice that they get on post-19 qualifications, without further primary legislation. It would force the QCDA to keep reviewing the qualifications, even if doing so duplicated the role of other bodies that were better placed to advise DIUS and DIUS Ministers did not want that advice. In the light of that, I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will not press the amendments.

David Laws: Again, I am grateful to the Minister for giving such full responses and for explaining the Governments thinking behind clause 169 and the excluded qualifications. She has usefully put the Governments thinking on the record. I need to reflect on what she has said before considering whether we have any concerns about taking such vocational qualifications out of the QCDAs remit.
On amendment 226, the Minister gave a fairly similar response to the one that she gave when we discussed information from awarding bodies. Although she is unwilling to accept the amendment, I hope that the QCDA will listen closely to those awarding bodies. I shall allow the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton to respond to his own amendment, as he no doubt wishes to, but I want to put on record that I am not entirely convinced about the clarity of the word coherence and about whether the Bill benefits from it. If one negates the two words in clause 167, one ends up with a fairly meaningless formula, which indicates that the clause does not add any clarity to the Bill and is not useful.

Nick Gibb: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I did not feel that the Ministers explanation of the use of coherence was convincing. Her main argument being that the word was in the 1997 Act when the QCA was established. The history of the QCA over the past 11 years has been anything but coherent. One only has to look at the administration, through ETS, of the standard assessment tests last summer. That was certainly not coherent. Using that word in the 1997 Act has not led to success, therefore we need the word rigour in the clause instead of the word coherence.
The Minister said that she was also in favour of rigour, so we share that aim. She thought that it was synonymous with quality, but I do not believe that it is. One can have progressive, quality exams that are. The Montessori approach is high quality, but few would regard it as a rigorous approach to young childrens education. There are arguments on both sides about whether it is effective. The QCDA should develop a rigorous curriculum for our schools. That is what the Minister and parents want. I hope that the Minister will vote with us as I press amendment 34 to a division.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 167 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 168 and 169 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 170

Qualifications: general functions

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move amendment 490, in clause 170, page 92, line 20, leave out subsection (5).

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments 491, 492 and 494.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Beginning with amendment 490, clause 170(5) makes explicit provision for the QCDA to develop, set or administer certain tests or tasks, which the QCA has been doing successfully for some years in relation to key and basic skills qualifications. The subsection mirrors one inserted into the Education Act 1997 by the Education Act 2002 to reflect that work. We need the QCDA to do such work in the future, but having reviewed the provision, we concluded that the QCDA can do those things under clause 175 of the Bill. Therefore, the provision is not needed and should be removed from the clause.
Amendment 491 clarifies how clause 171 will work. The clause allows the QCDA to assist Ofqual in the development of qualifications criteriait is therefore a key clause to make Ofqual effective. One of the key reasons for establishing Ofqual as an independent regulator was to get rid of the current conflict of interest in QCAs functions, where it is responsible for both the development of criteria of qualifications and their regulation, including public assurance about the maintenance of standards.
In future, we envisage the process to operate as follows. The QCDA will draft or amend the criteria for public qualifications. It may do so off its own batfor example, if it is time for a review of the criteriaor it may do so because the Secretary of State has asked it to. If it was the latter, the Secretary of State may have issued a determination under clause 138, setting out the minimum requirements for the qualification on knowledge, skills or understanding. Once the QCDA has developed the draft criteria, it will send them to Ofqual, which will then check and confirm that it is happy that the criteria allow standards to be maintained. If it is, it will formally adopt them, proceed to regulate against them, and invite awarding bodies to submit proposals for qualifications that meet the criteria. That will be a useful check on the quality of the QCDAs draft criteria. It also means that Ofqual, not having been responsible for developing the criteria, will be credible when it provides assurance about the qualifications developed against them. But if Ofqual was not happy with the draft criteria, it would send them back to the QCDA for redrafting. The decision on whether to adopt the criteria will be fundamental to the confidence in the new system.
Amendment 491 will change clause 171 so that the QCDA has a duty to assist Ofqual in setting criteria where a section 138 determination has been made. Giving the QCDA a duty reflects the importance of the clause, and, given the need to avoid a conflict of interest, we would expect the QCDA to undertake criteria development where such a determination has been made. Linking it to section 138 will allow the Secretary of State to retain an overview of the QCDAs priorities: by issuing such a determination he sets an expectation that it will be drafting the criteria. But it is an important principle that Ofqual continues to own the criteria to allow it to maintain a control of standards, which is why the duty only kicks in if Ofqual makes a request.
Even where a section 138 determination has not been issued, the QCDA may still assist in setting criteriaalthough it will not be under a duty to do so. As I have said, we would not expect to issue a section 138 determination as a matter of course.
Amendments 492 and 494 follow on from amendment 491. Amendment 492 clarifies that the assistance that QCDA may provide to Ofqual in connection with Ofquals qualification functions does not include financial assistance; it would be peculiar for one public body to be able to provide financial assistance to another. To ensure there is not a more general overlap between the respective powers of clauses 171 and 175, amendment 494 clarifies that clause 175 cannot be used to provide assistance that is within the scope of clause 171. On the basis of that explanation, I hope that the Committee will accept the amendments.

Amendment 490 agreed to.

David Laws: I beg to move amendment 146, in clause 170, page 92, line 25, at end add
(6) All qualifications which are approved by the QCDA and Ofqual must be funded by the Secretary of State, notwithstanding any advice which may be given to the Secretary of State by the Joint Advisory Committee for Qualifications Approval or any other body..
The amendment would insert a sixth paragraph at the end of clause 170, which sets out QCDAs duties and powers in relation to qualifications within the agencys remit. The amendment would ensure that all qualifications that are approved by QCDA and Ofqual would be funded by the Secretary of State, notwithstanding any advice that the Joint Advisory Committee for Qualifications Approval or any other body might give him.
JACQA is new and has a low profile, so I have no criticism of you, Mr. Chope, if you are unaware of it. For the Committees information, however, I have obtained a paper entitled JACQA: Frequently asked questions. It is not clear how frequently the questions are asked, but the first question, What is JACQA?, suggests that they are not asked very frequently at all. The paper explains that JACQA is
a new committee that is being set up to advise the Government on the public funding of 14-19 qualifications in England. We want to ensure that all publicly-funded qualifications help young people to unlock their talents and achieve their aspirationswe are therefore introducing a new process to ensure that public funding is directed only at those qualifications that meet this requirement.
In response to the second question, Who is on JACQA?, the paper notes:
JACQA will be made up of representatives from employers and all parts of the education and training sector. It will be co-owned and jointly chaired by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (subsequently to become the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency), and the Learning and Skills Council (subsequently to become the Young Peoples Learning Agency).
JACQA is an important body for the reasons given in the answer to the fifth question, which explains that JACQA is an advisory committee and, although it does not have any statutory powers, it
will make recommendations to the Secretary of State on which 14-19 qualifications should be eligible for public funding.
The Government talk about setting up independent bodies such as Ofqual and QCDA to give independent advice and make rational judgments about particular qualifications, but the papers 13th question reads:
Is it possible for a qualification to be accredited by Ofqual, but then rejected for funding by JACQA?
The answer, significantly, states:
Yes; accreditation and Section 96 approval are separate processes. A qualification could be accredited and then privately funded.
A qualification could therefore be approved by Ofqual and QCDA, but not receive any funding.
Why have the Government decided to set up JACQA? It means more bureaucracy and an additional power for the Secretary of State, and essentially cuts away much of the independence that the QCDA, arguably in partnership with Ofqual, has. Those bodies can develop qualifications, consult and do independent work, but ultimately, on the basis of an obscure body, they can discover that none of those qualifications will be funded by the Government.

Nick Gibb: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and that is precisely the situation that we find ourselves in now with the international general certificate of secondary education, which has been approved by the QCA, or Ofqual, and now we await a recommendation from that body to find out whether there will be funding. Meanwhile, we have a two-tier system in which the independent sector is allowed to teach the qualification and the state sector is not.

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is not just an argument for educational boffins. It has a real practical impact now, and it is a mechanism through which the Government can fail to fund qualifications they do not like. It is a mechanism through which they can pursue a narrow range of qualifications, rather than allow a market in qualifications to develop in the way that we discussed in part 7 of the Bill. Perhaps it is a way for the Government to deliver the slightly vague notion of coherence that we found out about at the beginning of this part. That appeared to be something to do with quality in the Ministers mind, but we suspect it is more about the Government dictating centrally which qualifications they do and do not like and preventing a genuine market in qualifications. That is a real concern to us. Essentially, it means that there is a power to veto the measures and to veto qualifications that may be good and of use in the private sector, and which state sector schools and colleges may wish to use, but which they are not permitted to use because the Secretary of State vetoes them. The amendment is a perfectly sensible one.

Annette Brooke: According to all my hon. Friends research, is it a matter of public knowledge whether the Secretary of State always follows the advice of his advisory body, or whether he has supreme power anyway?

David Laws: That is a very good question. I am desperately looking for the answer on my list of frequently asked questions about JACQA. Unfortunately, I do not have it. My hon. Friend raises a very important point and I think that the Minister, who is smiling in an encouraging way, intends to answer that question when she sums up. She might also say when the first meeting of JACQA was. It would be helpful if she clarified which qualifications have been referred to JACQA for its advice.
The amendment is important because it means that we could have high-quality qualifications that would be of use in the private sector and that maintained schools might wish to use. The qualifications could be denied to those schools not because of QCDA or Ofqual, but because of some obscure committee giving advice to a Secretary of State, who might wish to strangle qualifications that he or she sees as competing with the range of qualifications approved by the Government. I therefore hope that the Minister can respond to some of the points made, including those made by my hon. Friend, and assure us that she is going to get rid of that dreadful committee and allow QCDA and Ofqual to do the job that they are there for.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: As the hon. Gentleman explained, his amendment would require the Secretary of State to fund any qualification approved by both Ofqual and QCDA, regardless of advice given by JACQA or anyone else. The amendment is a little unclear but I assume that by approved by Ofqual it means regulated by Ofqual.
This measure will give to QCDA the power that currently rests with the Secretary of State to decide which regulated qualifications should be funded. That is not an extra power; it makes more transparent the operation of the existing power. Funding approval goes to the Secretary of State under the Learning and Skills Act 2000.
Ofquals role is to ensure that regulated qualifications are of good quality, whether those qualifications are used by maintained schools, colleges, independent schools, employers or others. However, just because a qualification is of good quality does not necessarily mean that it should be approved for funding in maintained schools and colleges. Qualifications used in state schools must fit in with the national curriculum. More generally, the Governments 14-to-19 qualification strategy sets out how we plan to rationalise the qualifications offer to make sure that it is easily understood, provides clear progression routes and meets the diverse needs of all young people.
The strategy is partly in response to complaints from schools that the current qualifications offer is confusing. We want to make it easy for young people to see what options are available to them, and to ensure there are no dead-end routes. It is entirely legitimate for the Government to decide which qualifications to fund, and, in particular, to decide not to fund some regulated qualifications. We have said, as a matter of policy, that we will normally approve funding only for qualifications that are regulated by Ofqual. Paragraph 21 of schedule 12 reinforces that by requiring ministerial consultation with Ofqual prior to approving funding for a qualification that is not regulated.
We have put in place the Joint Advisory Committee for Qualifications Approval, known as JACQA, which is a joint committee of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority and the Learning and Skills Council. If the Bill is passed, it will be a joint committee of the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency and the Young Peoples Learning Agency. JACQA is an advisory committee that first met in December 2008. It provides Ministers with informed advice on which qualifications are consistent with the qualifications strategy; but it is, and should remain, Ministers who are responsible for decisions on which qualifications to fund. They are accountable to Parliament for those decisions in a way that QCDA would not be.

David Laws: Is the Minister saying that her prime concern is that QCDA might approve qualifications that are not consistent with the national curriculum, and that she wants JACQA to check on that incompatibility?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: JACQA is there to advise Ministers on any issue. My point is that Ministers are accountable to Parliament, whereas QCDA is not, and that Ministers should be responsible for decisions on which qualifications to fund.

David Laws: Other than inconsistency with the national curriculum, what reasons might there be for being concerned about or rejecting a qualification?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I suppose that the main concern would be in relation to our 14-to-19 qualification strategy going forward in maintained schools. We have said on numerous occasions that we intend to have only four principal qualification options available nationally, beyond 2013, that are eligible for public funding: GCSEs and A-levels, diplomas, apprenticeships and progression pathways within the foundation learning tier.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to accept a recommendation by QCDA to fund a qualification, but would also require him to ignore a recommendation by JACQA, which will be a joint committee of QCDA. The current arrangements are transparent and the accountability is clear, whereas the amendment would be confusing. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

David Laws: I am afraid that I still have concerns about this matter. It seems odd to establish all these independent bodies, including QCDA, and then to reserve all these powers to the Secretary of State. The Minister has explained that she would be concerned about national curriculum issues, and that might be understandable, but it is not clear to me whether the availability of a qualification that was in some way inconsistent with the national curriculum would necessarily compromise the duty on schools to follow the national curriculum.
The Minister gave much more of a clue to the Governments thinking when she spoke about their desire for a limited number of qualification options and their desire to control the qualifications offer. That is much more what this is about. I understand her concern that we could have a proliferation of qualifications in the future, and that it might be difficult for universities and others to make judgments about them. I also understand that there might be a disadvantage to young people in educational institutions where certain qualifications are not on offer, but if the Government seek to regulate the qualification market in the way that I suspect they intend to, which is signalled by the establishment of such a body, the safety valve

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if his amendment is accepted, the danger is that Ofqual will look at funding considerations when deciding whether to regulate a qualification? That is not the purpose of Ofqual.

David Laws: I am not sure why Ofqual would need to consider that, particularly as the QCDA will already have an important responsibility in that area. We suggest that the qualifications approved by both QCDA and Ofqual should be funded by the Secretary of State. Allowing those qualifications to be used in the maintained sector is a safety valve when the Governments qualifications offer does not do the right job. That safety valve should be available to hold the Government to account. I am disappointed with the response, and I will seek to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 170, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 171

Assistance etc. in relation functions of Ofqual

Amendments made: 491, in clause 171, page 92, line 27, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert
(1) The QCDA must, if requested to do so by Ofqual, assist Ofqual in setting qualifications criteria which relate to a qualification or description of qualification in respect of which a determination under section 138(1) has effect.
(2) The QCDA may
(a) assist Ofqual in setting qualifications criteria which do not fall within subsection (1), and
(b) provide other assistance, information or advice to Ofqual in connection with the performance by Ofqual of any of its qualifications functions..

This amendment requires the QCDA, where requested by Ofqual, to assist in setting qualifications criteria for a qualification covered by a determination under 138(1). It also enables the QCDA generally to assist Ofqual in connection with its qualifications functions, including assisting with setting qualifications criteria in other cases.
Amendment 492, in clause 171, page 92, line 32, at end insert
assistance does not include financial assistance (and assist is to be construed accordingly);.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

This amendment prevents the QCDA from giving financial assistance to Ofqual when providing assistance to Ofqual under clause 171.

Clauses 171, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 172

Curriculum

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment 548, in clause 172, page 93, line 5, at end insert and publish a review annually.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 549, in clause 172, page 93, line 16, after may, insert
, with the permission of the Secretary of State,.
Amendment 553, in clause 172, page 93, line 17, at end insert
( ) The QCDA may, with the permission of the Secretary of State, publish and disseminate, or facilitate the publication or other dissemination of, information relating to exemptions from the Early Years Foundation Stage..
Amendment 550, in clause 173, page 93, line 24, at end insert
, as defined by the Secretary of State..
Amendment 551, in clause 173, page 93, line 36, after may, insert
, with the permission of the Secretary of State,.
Government amendment 493.
Amendment 552, in clause 175, page 94, line 29, after QCDA, insert
with the permission of the Secretary of State,.

Maria Miller: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Chope, in my first contribution to the Committees debates. This is an important part of the Bill, and there are a number of other important parts that I hope the Committee will consider this evening.
These amendments seek to ensure clarity about where the responsibility lies for the curriculum as applied to schools and, importantly, early years providers. Obliging the QCDA to require the Secretary of States permission to publish, disseminate or facilitate the publication of the curriculum would ensure that it needed the Secretary of States clear agreement to the curriculum, early learning goals and other educational programmes.
There are two reasons why that is important and why it is important to tie the Government closely into the workings of the QCDA. First, although the QDCA has operational responsibility for the day-to-day workings of the system, clear and unambiguous lines of responsibility must go back to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State is accountable to parents, students, teachers, early years workers and providers.
Secondly, the early years foundation stage is a new part of the curriculum, and considerable concerns remain about how it impacts on the early years sector. Some 2,000 child minders have left the child care sector since the EYFS was put in place. The Secretary of State will need to monitor closely the impact of the EYFS, because a careful balance must be kept between the implementation of the strategy and providers ability to continue to provide an important part of our child care system. The EYFS is complex and highly prescriptive, and it is clearly having an impact on providers. That is why it is important for the Secretary of State to be kept involved. The Departments own consultation highlighted a lack of clarity on responsibility in that area, and we feel that the amendments would help.
It might also be useful at this point to remind the Committee of the problems that other hon. Members are having with another non-departmental public body, the Learning and Skills Council. Hon. Members will be aware of the funding crisis in the further education sector. As a result of close questioning by hon. Members, Ministers have had to admit that they were not fully aware of the work being done by the LSC, perhaps because it is a non-departmental public body.
I do not think that such lack of involvement and knowledge of what is going on will be acceptable in such an important matter as the curriculum. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families needs to be aware of what is happening. To avoid doubt, the amendments would make it crystal clear that the Government are ultimately responsible for that important area of policy.
Amendment 553 recognises provisions made by the Government that allow certain providers of early years care with a proven record of offering excellent early years education to request an exemption from the EYFS. That amendment would put a clear responsibility on the QCDA to ensure that information about exemptions is readily available, particularly information on how a provider can make an application.
Schedule 12 will enable the Secretary of State to set up a body, including the QCDA, to review cases for exemptions from the EYFS and to keep those cases under review. The Government have taken seriously the concerns expressed by some providers, hence the exemption procedure. Perhaps the Minister is also aware of the concerns raised about the nature of the exemption process. Exemptions are possible in theory, but they seem to be more difficult to come by in practice. In undertaking to disseminate information on the matter, the QCDA will be able to assess whether the exemption process is practical and proportionate and ensure that the system is workable.

Annette Brooke: I am sure that the hon. Lady shares my concern that the option of exemption is given only for a limited timetwo years, I think. Would her amendment make exemptions possible for a much longer period, given the QCDAs views?

Maria Miller: That is not the objective behind the amendment, although I understand the hon. Ladys concern. Our concern is a more fundamental one about the exemption procedures and processes, which I hope the QCDA would consider if it had more responsibility in that area. I am not sure that I like a system that includes exemptions, because it shows that the system has a fundamental weakness in being unable to accommodate certain providers, notwithstanding what my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said about the Montessori system, which offers what some parents want in terms of quality early years care. My concern is why we do not have a system that can accommodate everybody. It probably shows a weakness in the system, although I take the hon. Ladys point.
Amendment 548 would require the QCDA to provide an annual report on the curriculum. That would play an important role in keeping everybody who is interested in the workings of the QCDA aware of its work and provide an important opportunity to assess the early years foundation stage at a critical time. The QCDA is uniquely placed, because it looks at both the curriculum and training and it can pull those together. Early years has not had a great deal of time given to it in the Committee. It is rather a shame that some very important early years provisions, and provisions on childrens trust boards and Sure Start, have been shoe-horned into a Bill that has little to do with those subjects. Those provisions have been overshadowed, so I would therefore like to focus on the early years stage.
There is a growing body of evidence that, despite spending £17 billion in the past decade, the improvements in every childs ability to reach their potential regardless of their start in life are simply not coming through, which we see when we look at the results from key stage 1. The Committee will be aware that early years education and care is critical if a child is to reach his or her potential. The QCDA therefore has a critical role in the curriculum in the early years stage and in training. By the age of two, a child from a more privileged background will already have an academic advantage over their poorer peers and the difference is likely to become more pronounced as their school careers progress.
The Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre report shows that the quality of early years care has a significant effect on a childs early years achievement levels. In particular, there is a positive effect from attending higher quality or more effective pre-school settings on a childs subsequent outcomes in maths and reading at the end of year 5. We are not seeing the significant expansion in early years education through the early years entitlement and the more general availability of child carearound 90 per cent. of three and four-year-olds now receive some form of early years education in a formal settingtranslate into results for children from our most deprived areas.
The statistics are stark. In 2005, 71 per cent. of the most deprived 10 per cent. of children in this country achieved national standard in writing; yet by 2007, that figure had fallen to 68 per cent.I received those figures from the Minister in answer to parliamentary questions. When it comes to reading, the trend is again in the wrong direction, despite the investment. Fewer children in the most deprived 10 per cent. of communities achieve the national standard in key stage 1. An annual report from the QCDA could look at that and throw a spotlight on it, and on all the other issues, such as the need to review the EYFS, which is critical.
The report could also look at what training needs need to be adapted to ensure that children get the start in life that they need. It is important to include training in the report. It is in line with QCDAs objectives as set out in the Bill, and other answers to parliamentary questions have revealed yet again that there has been a decline in the number of child care staff qualified to level 3 in the 30 per cent. most deprived areas in the country. I remind the Committee that one in four early years staff are still not qualified to the most basic standard. That is the case behind the amendments.
Will the Minister explain the meaning of the Government amendment? The original meaning of the Bill will be quite significantly changed by it. Originally, the Bill meant that not all regulated assessments would be kept under review. Does she mean that the QCDA will keep every assessment under review, or are non-regulated assessments excluded? If the latter is true, will she outline exactly what is a non-regulated assessment and which assessments would be affected?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: A common theme of many of the amendments we have been dealing with is that they seek to put a lot of detail into the Bill about how QCDA and Ofqual should do their work. I am sure the Committee will be familiar with what I am about to say. As a matter of good practice, legislation should as far as possible set out the organisations objectives, give it the necessary powers and leave the howthe processes it should use and so onto the organisation to decide. How the bodies need to do things may change over time as circumstances change in ways we cannot currently predict. So the less process we put on the Bill the better.
Amendment 548 falls firmly into that category. It may indeed be appropriate for QCDA to publish regular reports on the curriculum, but there is no reason to require it to do so in the Bill. Amendments 549 and 551 would require QCDA to gain the Secretary of States permission before publishing or disseminating information about the curriculum or early learning goals and educational programmes. This is unnecessary. I think it would be unduly burdensome and bureaucratic on both QCDA and the Secretary of State for permission to have to be sought before QCDA could exercise some fairly core functions. Amendment 552, similarly, would require the Secretary of States approval before QCDA could provide services or other assistance. This again would be unduly burdensome.

Maria Miller: The Minister is trotting out the line that this is burdensome. We have heard her say that at earlier stages of the Committee. I suggest that a burdensome role is perhaps part of the ministerial responsibility. Given the current problems with the Learning and Skills Council and the lack of understanding that the Minister responsible for that part of the organisation shows in explaining what was going on, surely the Secretary of State should have a role in understanding what is going on with these sorts of non-departmental public bodies.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The amendment says that the Secretary of States approval would be required before QCDA could provide services or other assistance. If a school came to the QCDA seeking advice on the implementation of the curriculum, why should the QCDA have to seek ministerial approval before providing the advice requested?
Amendments 550 and 553 relate to the early learning goals and educational programmes which are part of QCDAs remit. Amendment 550 requires that these must be as defined by the Secretary of State. The amendment is not necessary because the QCDA is already bound to the Secretary of States definitions. Clause 173(5) states that
the early learning goals and educational programmes
are those requirements specified under section 39(1)(a) of the Childcare Act 2006. Under this Act, the early learning goals and educational programme are already specified by the Secretary of State in section 2 of the statutory framework for the early years foundation stage document. QCDA has no power to change these existing legal requirements.
Finally, amendment 553 proposes an additional power for the QCDA to publish and disseminate, or facilitate the publication or other dissemination of information relating to exemptions from the early years foundation stage. I agree that QCDA needs to be able to publish such information, but this amendment is not necessary to enable that. QCDA has a power in clause 173(4) to publish and disseminate information relating to the early learning goals, educational programmes and assessment arrangements for the EYFS. This would include information relating to exemptions.
I hope that the hon. Lady will be willing to withdraw the amendment. Before I move to Government amendment 493, it would be extremely remiss of me not to wish to hon. Lady a happy birthday. She reminded us of it on Tuesday. She also asked me about the thinking behind Government amendment 493. It will ensure that the QCDA can keep all regulated assessment arrangements under review. As drafted, clause 174 restricted QCDAs general review function to assessment arrangements that were not regulated assessments, in other words, assessments that were outside the orders made under sections 128(3) and 128(5) of the 2002 and 2006 Acts and therefore outside Ofquals scope. In the explanatory notes to that provision we confirmed that this was not intended to stop QCDA reviewing regulated assessment arrangements where that was appropriate for purposes connected to its other functions. But for the sake of consistency with the approach of the Bill to QCDAs other functions we have decided to make this explicit.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for taking the time to go through such a detailed response to this group of amendments. I am reassured that she agrees that it may be appropriate for a report to be issued by this organisation but it is not required by the Bill and I hope that feeling of it being appropriate is something that will be communicated to it. We would all want to be mindful of the work it is doing in this important area of the curriculum.
In terms of amendment 553, again I was reassured somewhat by the Ministers response that she agreed that there was already a function that the QCDA could disseminate information in this area. I hope that it goes further than that and the QCDA actually looks at the procedures and processes behind the exemptions, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said earlier. She raised an issue around time limits of the exemptions. There is a great deal of concern about complexity in this area. I do not agree that there is no need to clarify the Secretary of States role within the QCDA and I remain concerned that there are problems with non-departmental public bodies and understanding the level of responsibility that Ministers are willing to take for decisions made by non-departmental public bodies. I am mindful that the Committee has long proceedings today so I will not push this to a vote but I thank the Minister for her comments. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 172 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 173 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 174

Assessment arrangements

Amendment made: 493, in clause 174, page 94, line 3, leave out which are not regulated assessment arrangements.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

This amendment provides that the QCDA has to keep under review all those assessment arrangements which fall within its remit, including regulated assessment arrangements.

Clause 174, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 175

Provision of services or other assistance

Amendment made: 494, in clause 175, page 95, line 13, at end insert
(9) The powers under subsections (1) and (2) must not be exercised
(a) to assist Ofqual in setting qualifications criteria, or
(b) to provide other assistance, information or advice to Ofqual in connection with the performance by Ofqual of any of its qualifications functions.
(10) In subsection (9) Ofqual, qualifications criteria and qualifications functions have the same meanings as in section 171..(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

This amendment clarifies that the powers of the QCDA to provide services and other assistance under clause 175 do not cover assistance to Ofqual in any circumstances within the scope of clause 171 (which allows the QCDA to provide assistance to Ofqual in connection with that bodys qualifications functions).

Clause 175, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 176 and 177 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 178

Co-operation and joint working

Amendment made: 495, in clause 178, page 95, line 33, leave out from authority to end and insert
includes any person who performs functions (whether or not in the United Kingdom) which are of a public nature..(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

This amendment reproduces the definition of public authority in full, rather than cross-referring to the definition in clause 148.

Clause 178, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 179 and 180 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 181

Guidance by the Secretary of State

Amendment made: 303, in clause 181, page 96, line 13, leave out from time to time.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 290.

Clause 181, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 182

Interpretation of Part

David Laws: I beg to move amendment 147, in clause 182, page 96, line 26, after school, insert or Academy.
After that burst of activity, we need to take stock of clause 182, which gives us the interpretation of part 8 of the Bill. I draw hon. Members attention particularly to subsection (1) in which a maintained school is defined as a community, foundation or voluntary school. Amendment 147 would insert an academy after school in order to include academy in this part of the Bill.
I am keen to find out from the Minister whether there is any significance in the exclusion of academies from this part of the Bill, and what the effect might be of excluding or including academies in this part of the Bill. Presumably, if any particular thinking underlies this, it might be that academies enjoyor certainly used to enjoya bit more freedom in relation to the curriculum than other maintained schools.
Our view, of course, is that there is nothing wrong with having that curriculum freedom. All schools ought to enjoy that curriculum freedom, and it should not simply be available for those schools that the Government have cherry-picked and made academies, many of which are, of course, still categorised as being in the national challenge category because of their poor results. In fairness, those poor results are usually inherited from the previous schools that were serving tough catchment areas and were perhaps not doing well for a prolonged period.
Our desire is to extend academy freedoms in that respect to all maintained schools, not to deny them to existing academies. However, there is a need to treat academies rationally and fairly within the group of all state-funded schools. Indeed, we will come to that issue later in relation to another clause under which academies appear to be left out and treated in a distinct way from other maintained schools. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide clarification of why academies are not included in this listing of schools and what the impact of that is.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The effect of the hon. Gentlemans amendment would be to extend the remit of the QCDA beyond that of its predecessor, the QCA, to include matters relating to curriculum and assessment arrangements in academies. As hon. Members know, academies differ from other state-funded schools in their regulatory framework through funding agreements rather than legislation, which brings with it the freedom to adopt innovative approaches to raising standards. Academies also differ because of the involvement of independent sponsors. Those differences are fundamental to the academies programme and must be preserved. The autonomy of academies has been a key feature of their success, and we know that academy principals and sponsors take seriously any proposals that could lead to the erosion of their independence.

David Laws: Will the Minister explain why the freedoms to innovate in relation to the curriculum, which I welcome, are denied to other maintained schoolsincluding high-performing maintained schools?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The reason is that, in general, academies are in areas that have had significant difficulties and are deprived. Those freedoms should operate in that way to enable children who are not reaching the required standards to do so.

David Laws: Perhaps I will try another approach. Would she consider giving those same freedoms to other schools in challenging areas with poor results that have good leadership?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: A feature of our policy is that we have a range of different methods by which we are improving education throughout the country. Academies are just one way of doing that and we are committed to extending our academies programme. However, we are not saying that we should have academies across the entire school estate.
Our general policy has been to avoid placing requirements on academies through legislation unless academy involvement has been essential to make the proposed arrangements work properly. We will be coming to clauses later that relate to that. In the case of the childrens trust, academies should be given the opportunity to represent the interests of their pupils.
Academies are required to teach a broad and balanced curriculum and to teach the programmes of study in the core subjects of the national curriculum. Beyond those requirements, we are keen to allow them the freedom to develop a curriculum that is driven by the needs of their pupils in the circumstances in which their pupils find themselves. We do not believe that it will help academies, which generally speaking are our schools facing the most challenging circumstances, to impose a greater curriculum and assessment requirement on them.

David Laws: It may not surprise hon. Members to hear that I found the Ministers response totally and utterly unconvincing. It is completely dotty to deny to high-performing maintained schools the freedoms that academies enjoy over the curriculum. What possible reason can there be for denying the top maintained schools the freedoms to innovate in the curriculum when we give them to some of the most challenging schools throughout the country, many of which are listed among the national challenge schools, and some of which have weak leadership and cause great concern to the Department? At least there would be some consistency and rationality in Government policy if those freedoms to innovate, which the Government appear to argue are important to enabling schools in challenging circumstances to do better, were extended to other schools in challenging circumstances which do not happen to be academies.
For example, the Phoenix school in west London has one of the most challenging intakes anywhere in the country, was one of the most poorly performing maintained schools 10 or 15 years ago, was very nearly closed, and had police officers in and out every day because of disorder problems, and huge numbers of supply and temporary teachers because of other problems. How can it be right to extend curricular freedoms to academies in such challenging circumstances but not to maintained schools in the same circumstances?
Such curricular freedoms should be available to all schools, perhaps excepting those that are in special measures or have particular deficiencies in leadership. However, there is no justification whatever for the policy that the Minister has just set out, and there is no coherent reason for the Governments position, which is entirely arbitrary and unjustifiable. If those powers to innovate in the curriculum really are as important as the Minister implied by the fact that they have been given only to academies in such circumstances, surely they should be available to all schools.
I did not suggest, as the Minister also implied, that academies be rolled out throughout the entire school estate; all I suggested was that the powers to innovate in the curriculum be available consistently to every single school. She should be embarrassed to come to this place and put before the Committee views that have such weak grounding in any argument and on any statistical basis. Although we do not wish to extend onerous responsibilities to every school in the country, the only way in which we can signal our dissatisfaction with the lack of logic in the Governments policy is to ask for a Division on amendment 147.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 2, Noes 12.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 182 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 165 and 183 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 12

Ofqual and the QCDA: minor and consequential amendments

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move amendment 501, in schedule 12, page 202, line 7, at end insert

Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (c. 39)
(1) Subject to sub-paragraph (2), in the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 (supply of goods and services by local authorities to public bodies) public body includes the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency.
(2) The provision in sub-paragraph (1) has effect as if made by an order made by the Secretary of State under section 1(5) of that Act (power to provide that a person is to be a public body for the purposes of the Act) and accordingly may be varied or revoked by such an order..

This amendment provides that the QCDA is to be a public body for the purposes of the 1970 Act. It replaces a similar provision for the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority in the Education Act 1997 (which is repeated by amendment 514).

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 502, 513 to 517 and 496.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Amendments 501, 502 and 513 to 516 will update other statutes to reflect the renaming of the QCA and the setting up of Ofqual. In amendment 502 on the provision of information by maintained schools in relation to qualifications, there is a further change to align the provisions with Government policy on the public funding of qualifications for under-19s. Amendment 517 will repeal provisions in the Education Act 2002, which is consequential on the repeal by this Bill of provisions of the Education Act 1997 relating to the QCA. Amendment 496 is consequent on amendment 502 and will allow Welsh Ministers to commence the amendment to section 408(2)(e) of the Education Act 1996 in relation to Wales on an appointed day. I hope that hon. Members will agree to the amendments.

Amendment 501 agreed to.

Amendments made: 502, in schedule 12, page 202, line 38, at end insert

Education Act 1996 (c. 56)
7A The Education Act 1996 is amended as follows.
7B In section 391(10) (functions of advisory councils) in paragraph (a) for Qualifications and Curriculum Authority substitute Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency.
7C (1) Section 408 (provision of information) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) after 2002 insert or the provisions of Parts 7 and 8 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009.
(3) In subsection (2)(e)
(a) for external substitute relevant;
(b) after 2000) insert which are approved under section 98 or 99 of that Act..

This amendment makes changes to the Education Act 1996 in consequence of the provisions in the Bill about the QCDA and the amendments to the Learning and Skills Act 200/ It also limits the duty under section 408 to those qualifications that have been approved for public funding.
503, in schedule 12, page 203, leave out lines 39 to 44 and insert
(g) in respect of relevant qualifications which are subject to that requirement, to develop and publish criteria for the accreditation of particular forms of any such qualifications;
(h) where a relevant qualification is subject to that requirement, to accredit a particular form of the qualification which meets such criteria and is submitted for accreditation by a person recognised under paragraph (e) in respect of the qualification;.(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

This amendment provides for the Welsh Ministers to develop criteria for the accreditations of, and to accredit, different forms of a qualification in respect of which the Welsh Ministers have made a determination under section 30(1)(f) of the Education Act 1997 (as inserted by the Bill).

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move amendment 504, in schedule 12, page 204, line 16, leave out section and insert Chapter.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 507.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 507, 510 and 511.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The amendments are designed to ensure that there is a consistent approach to qualification regulation and development across England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which allows each country to ensure its interests and those of the learner are appropriately safeguarded while retaining the three country qualifications framework. I hope that the Committee will agree to the amendments.

David Laws: I think that we are dealing with amendment 510 in this group. I know that you will correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Chope. Will the Minister explain why the provision that will be removed by amendment 510 is unnecessary?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The provision is unnecessary because all decisions made in the name of Welsh Ministers are treated as being decisions by them.

Amendment 504 agreed to.

Amendments made: 505, in schedule 12, page 204, line 25, leave out or will and insert
, will be or may reasonably be expected to.

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 436.
Amendment 506, in schedule 12, page 204, line 27, leave out 32B and insert 32C.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 512.
Amendment 507, in schedule 12, page 205, line 19, at end insert
After section 32 insert
32ZA Qualifications functions of Welsh Ministers: co-operation and joint working etc.
(1) The Welsh Ministers may co-operate or work jointly with a relevant authority where it is appropriate to do so in connection with the carrying out of any of their qualifications functions.
(2) The Welsh Ministers may provide information to a relevant authority for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the carrying out of a relevant function of the authority.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), the Welsh Ministers and any other relevant authority may establish a committee jointly, and any committee so established may establish sub-committees.
(4) The Welsh Ministers may only exercise the power in subsection (3) if they consider it appropriate to do so for the purpose of the carrying out of any of their qualifications functions.
(5) In this section a committee established under subsection (3) is referred to as a joint committee and a sub-committee established under that subsection is referred to as a joint sub-committee.
(6) A joint committee and a joint sub-committee must include at least one member of staff of the Welsh Assembly Government.
(7) A joint committee may regulate
(a) its own procedure (including quorum), and
(b) the procedure (including quorum) of any sub-committee established by it.
(8) The validity of proceedings of a joint committee or a joint sub-committee is not affected by
(a) a vacancy, or
(b) a defective appointment.
(9) The Welsh Ministers may delegate any of their qualifications functions to a joint committee to the extent and on the terms that they determine.
(10) A joint committee may delegate any of its functions to a sub-committee established by it to the extent and on the terms that the joint committee determines.
(11) The powers of a joint committee under subsection (10) are subject to the power of the Welsh Ministers and any other person with whom they established the joint committee to direct (acting jointly) what the committee may and may not do.
(12) Nothing in subsection (2)
(a) affects any power to disclose information that exists apart from that subsection, or
(b) authorises the disclosure of information in contravention of any provision made by or under any Act which prevents disclosure of the information.
(13) In this section
qualifications functions means functions in connection with relevant qualifications;
relevant authority means any person who carries out a function (whether or not in the United Kingdom) which is similar to any of the qualifications functions of the Welsh Ministers;
relevant function means a function which is similar to any of the qualifications functions of the Welsh Ministers..

This new section for the Education Act 1997 allows the Welsh Ministers to co-operation, work jointly and form joint committees with other relevant authorities whose functions are similar to any of the qualifications functions of the Welsh Ministers (for example, Ofqual).
Amendment 508, in schedule 12, page 205, line 26, leave out section 32B and insert sections 32B and 32C.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 512.
Amendment 509, in schedule 12, page 205, line 42, at end insert awarded or authenticated by the person.

This is a technical amendment. See Members explanatory statement for amendment 482.
Amendment 511, in schedule 12, page 206, line 38, leave out that decision and insert the decision on review.

This amendment is consequent on amendment 510.
Amendment 512, in schedule 12, page 206, line 39, at end insert
32C Surrender of recognition
(1) A recognised person may give notice to the Welsh Ministers that the person wishes to cease to be recognised in respect of the award or authentication of a specified qualification or description of qualification.
(2) As soon as reasonably practicable after receipt of a notice under subsection (1) the Welsh Ministers must give notice to the recognised person of the date on which the person is to cease to be recognised in the respect in question (the surrender date).
(3) In deciding the surrender date the Welsh Ministers must have regard to the need to avoid prejudicing persons who are seeking, or might reasonably be expected to seek, to obtain the qualification, or a qualification of the description, specified in the notice under subsection (1).
(4) The Welsh Ministers may make saving or transitional provision in connection with a recognised person ceasing to be recognised in any respect by virtue of this section..

This amendment allows a recognised person to surrender recognition by giving notice to the Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Ministers have the power to decide the date on which the surrender takes effect (acting in accordance with the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) and may make saving or transitional provision.
Amendment 513, in schedule 12, page 206, line 39, at end insert
In section 35(1) (transfer of staff) at the end insert , known instead as the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency from the day on which section 166 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 comes into force..

This amendment makes a change to section 35 of the Education Act 1997 (which made provision for the transfer of staff to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) when it was established) to reflect the QCAs change of name.
Amendment 514, in schedule 12, page 207, line 6, at end insert
In Schedule 7 (minor and consequential amendments) omit paragraph 2..

See Members explanatory statement for amendment 501.
Amendment 515, in schedule 12, page 212, line 13, at end insert

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (c. 47)
In section 21(10) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (controlled activity relating to children) in paragraph (d) for Qualifications and Curriculum Authority substitute Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency..(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)

This amendment changes the reference to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 to reflect the QCAs new name.

Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 184

Arrangements to promote co-operation

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment 75, in clause 184, page 97, leave out lines 18 to 20.

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 367, in clause 184, page 97, line 23, at end insert
(fe) the management committee of a school falling within section 19(2B) of the Education Act 1996 (c.56) (pupil referral units).
Amendment 195, in clause 184, page 97, line 26, at end insert
(ff) a short stay school within the area of the authority;
(fg) a Sure Start Childrens Centre within the area of the authority;
(fh) a representative of an extended school provider within the area of the authority;
(fi) general medical practitioners within the area of the authority..

Maria Miller: Clause 184 looks at the bodies that should work together to improve services for children in all our communities across this country. Effective joint working was one of the most important recommendations in the original Laming inquiry, yet six years on we are still some way from achieving that goal. Indeed, Sir Alan Steer, while giving evidence to the Committee, said of childrens trust boards that
pulling together all the services around the child...would certainly be good, but that is very much speculating on a desired outcome, rather than evidence that one can see at the moment.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 5 March 2009; c. 113, Q13.]
The lack of effectiveness of childrens trust boards to date was echoed by the Audit Commissions report of October 2008, which stated that after five years there is little evidence that they have improved outcomes for children and young people. One specific criticism was that many of the representatives on childrens trust boards lack a mandate for committing resources. The importance of engaging missing partners was also reinforced. The amendments attempt to address those problems and look at some of the other issues raised. A desire for consistent and effective joint working through the childrens trust boards has driven the Government to put aside the Audit Commissions advice that they should not proceed in making childrens trust boards statutory in the Bill.
The clause sets out some of the details on who will be involved in childrens trust boards to try to make that working a reality. Taking forward childrens trust boards and enshrining them on the statute book is something that the Audit Commission was clearly not happy with. It heavily criticised them because of its concerns over the effectiveness of the organisations, so the amendments would address those issues and look particularly at the membership of childrens trust boards in the light of the evidence we received on that in the evidence sessions and in separate submissions.
Amendment 195 seeks to address some notable omissions in what are called relevant partners in the Bill. It would include in section (2) short-stay schools, representatives of childrens centres, extended schools and from general practitioners. The Governments original proposals focused on how pupil referral units, GPs and Sure Start centres might properly be involved in childrens trust boards, yet the Bill does not appear to have taken up that challenge. At the start of the consultation leading to the Bill, the Government set out with some vigour their stall on who should have a duty to co-operate, stating clearly that schools, early years settings and other universal services must take a leading role. The consultation set out that the proposal was to involve schools, general practitioners and Sure Start centres formally in childrens trusts. All respondents to the Governments consultation process felt that Sure Start centres in particular should be engaged with childrens trust boards. A suggestion was even made that Sure Start childrens centres could be managed through childrens trust boards.
However, the Bill is economical with changes and does not make some of those suggested during the consultation in relation to the bodies that might be required to co-operate. The DCSFs own consultation showed that getting the right people to the table was pivotal to ensuring that a corresponding strong voice was given to all relevant bodies involved in improving outcomes for children. I hope that the Minister agrees that the amendment would help to ensure that the right people are in place to make those decisions and make the bodies far more effective.
The Minister might know that Save the Children put out a very good briefing. It, too, raised the concern about the lack of reference in the Bill to pupil referral units being a relevant partner. Will she also take this opportunity to clear up another question about membership of childrens trust boards? I believe that a recent Department of Health consultation stated that somebody responsible for vulnerable children would be on childrens trust boards, but the Bill does not indicate that that assertion will be carried through by her Department. Is this planned to be added, and if so how will it be put in place?
Amendment 75 echoes points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton on other occasions about the importance of protecting academy freedoms. We need to get the right bodies to the table to make decisions about the future of our children, but we also have to accept that academies cannot be treated in the same way. The Bill will put a statutory obligation on an academy to be a relevant partner, which would mean that it would have to participate in childrens trust boards. Although an academy might choose to do sowe heard no resistance to such an input in our evidence sessionswe heard resistance to an obligation being placed on academies that might take away from their autonomy. Listing academies as a relevant partner would contribute to the continual erosion of academy freedoms that we have seen over time. The amendment would ensure that this change does nothing more to undermine those very important freedoms, which will make academies successful for children.

David Laws: I assume that the hon. Ladys position is that all schools should have that freedom, not just academies.

Maria Miller: My amendment refers specifically to academies. From the start, academies have set great store by their independence. Although a strong argument could be made for academies to be involved in the workings of a childrens trust board, the Government must accept that they fall into a different category. Many would choose to work with boards to improve outcomes for children, but academies and head teachers might be concerned about the bureaucratic burden that an obligation would place on them. I think that subsequent amendments will pick up on that point.

Annette Brooke: I shall begin with amendment 75. This part of the Bill deals with the principle of co-operation to improve well-being. When we look at the members of the childrens trust boards, we will seek much further clarification, because we are all concerned about extra burdens and bureaucracy, but I find it difficult to disagree with the principle of bringing those particular bodies mentioned in subsection (2) into the requirement to co-operate.
I am extremely surprised that Conservative Members want to exclude academies. By definitionand as the Minister told us this afternoonacademies will deal with some of our most vulnerable and disadvantaged children, and if ever there was a need to be able to tap in quickly to support services, it will be under those circumstances. Indeed, the principle of schools in general being called into that general duty was fought tooth and nail from the Opposition Benches when the Children Act 2004 was discussed in Committee. We also argued very strongly that GPs should be included; we were certainly working together.
I have noticed a huge omission that has become greater over time and that goes back to 2004 Act: housing bodies are missing. The provision may refer to the local authorities, but when one considers housing associations and arms length management organisations, all Members will have dealt with tragic cases trying to sort out housing for families with disabled children. Whenever there is a case of something extra, I suggest that it should be added at this point. As far as I am concerned, it is five years too late, but it should be there, and I shall table the amendment on Report if the Government are not willing even to look at this. I would be disappointed if the Government did not look at it, because they have made such progress in improving conditions for families with disabled children, but there is a lot more to do where housing is concerned.
While we are looking at vulnerable children, we can reflect on the fact that Shelter suggests that 1 million children live in unsuitable housing conditions. That has a huge knock-on. I do not think that it is sufficient, with ALMOs and independent ownership of housing associations, just to mention local authorities. That is why we need the schools brought inas the Bill does this timebecause schools have become more independent from local authorities, which I support. We need a balance and I believe that organisations must co-operate to improve well-being but we must ensure that we do not make that duty unnecessarily onerous.
Amendment 367 specifically refers to pupil referral units. We have used that term here very deliberately because we are aware that there is a proposal to rename them, but its use is appropriate at this stage. It is particularly interesting that the Government consulted on the inclusion of such units. When we look at the analysis of the responses to the consultation, there is a whole paragraph, which starts by saying:
Nearly all responses to this question suggested that the duty should be extended to all the suggested bodies particularly schools and FE colleges.
It goes on for a number of different institutions, but it does not mention in the summary what the response was on the pupil referral units other than in the first sentence, which suggests that there was general support.
I feel particularly strongly about pupil referrals units being included in the list; there are quite a large number of them, about 450. I know that 11 are in special measures and that the one in Poole has been languishing in special measures for far too long. We have to consider the reasons why children are in pupil referral units.
The Government have acknowledged that there is a lack of reliable and detailed information about the characteristics and outcomes of children and young people receiving alternative education and provision. The data available tells us that the most likely reason for a young person to be looking for alternative provision is exclusion. Other reasons for being placed in a PRU are physical, mental and emotional ill-health; teenage motherhood; pupils having difficulties dealing with the mainstream school system; or perhaps even being temporarily without a school place.
Some 75 per cent. of pupils at PRUs have special educational needs and, sadly, a large number of young people who attend a PRU have committed a crime in the last year. When one looks at the very different characteristics of the pupilsand there will not be a very large number of them in any particular unitthe services needed are all medium, highly specialist services, whether child and adolescent mental health services, or other support to stop them going go too far down the path of crime. There is a strong case for making sure that PRUs are firmly in the centre of this duty to co-operate and therefore that they have very close relationships with the relevant partners. It is not surprising that in 2007, 88.3 per cent. of 15-year-old pupils in PRUs did not gain a single GCSE at grade A* to C, because this is a group of young vulnerable people who deserve better.
The Government are attempting to address that with the change to short stay state schools and the title itself is interesting, because we know that young people tend to languish for far too long in PRUs. As the Government are taking such a stance, in an area which so desperately needs reform, why not go that one step further and include pupil referral units in section 10 of the Children Act 2004? I will be really interested in the Ministers reply to that. Can she provide details on how the Government will ensure that providers of alternative education in the private and voluntary sector can be involved in the work with childrens trusts, because that will be important for alternative providers, and say how that will fit into the work of the childrens trusts?
The other suggestions are sensible. We have got notes, circulated by the Minister, about a possible suggestion on how GPs can be tied into the duty through being nominated by primary care trusts. It is desperately important that GPs are more engaged with the whole agenda and Every Child Matters. We have to make sure that we get it right in the Bill. We have had long enough to reflect since our discussions in 2003 and the enactment of the Children Act 2004, and we need to get this list of partners right at this stage.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank both hon. Ladies for their contribution. The hon. Member for Basingstoke mentioned the Audit Commission report Are We There Yet? Its criticisms did not take account of the rapidly developing policy context, or the fact that change was often in reaction to local governments own expressed views in response to consultation. It does not fully reflect the childrens plan messages about strengthening childrens trusts, the revised statutory guidance on childrens trusts, or consultation on the new legislation, all of which address the problems highlighted in the report. In particular, putting childrens trust boards on a firmer statutory footing in the Bill does much to answer the criticisms in that report.

Maria Miller: The Minister is right to point out that a great deal of water has passed under the bridge since October 2008. Or has it? That is not long ago.
My comments also referred to evidence that we were given by people working at the chalk face who question the effectiveness of childrens trust boards. I understand her point, that a great deal of effort is going in to make the organisations more effective, but she cannot completely ignore the evidence that we were given.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I respond with Caroline Abrahams, who is the programme director for children and young people at the Local Government Association. All the agencies put their resources into
The development of our school and community...early intervention teams...we wouldnt have got there without the childrens trust.
We shall move on.
The amendments deal with membership of the childrens trust, which organisations should be placed under a statutory duty to co-operate with the partnership as relevant partners and which should not. As the childrens trust is fundamentally about bringing together all those with an interest in childrens well-being, we naturally take an inclusive view.
I agree that it is important that the organisations listed in amendments 195 and 367 are part of the co-operation arrangements. Sure Start childrens centres are already represented by their constituent partnersthe local authority, the primary care trust and Jobcentre Plus. We also plan to legislate for the childrens trust board to consult the advisory board of each childrens centre in the local area when preparing a children and young peoples plan. We are confident, therefore, that the interests of childrens centres and of the parents and children that they serve will continue to be represented.

Maria Miller: I hear what the Minister says, but why is she going to such great lengths to put childrens centres at arms length from childrens trust boards, when clear evidence came through from her departmental consultation that the relationship should be much closer? What is the basic reason for not making the centres a partner in childrens trust boards?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The constituent partners and those with responsibility for childrens centresthe local authority, the primary care trust and Jobcentre Plusare already relevant partners, so it is not necessary to have those in as well.
There is a large range of private, voluntary and independent providers of extended school services to schools. Many are already actively involved in the work of the childrens trust. The clause will for the first time allow them to become members of the childrens trust board by local agreement. We can see value in seeking to place their membership on a statutory footing, but it would be difficult to do so without requiring that all PVI providers be directly represented, which could create practical difficulties and hinder the effective operation of the trusts.
We mentioned GPs, who of course have an important role to play, but they are a varied group of independent contractors. As with the PVI providers, making them relevant partners would not be an effective way of engaging them at this time. However, once new arrangements for childrens trusts have settled down, we intend to identify and share best practice to make sure that the work of GPs is effectively embedded in the childrens trust. In the interim, we have strengthened the statutory guidance to make it explicit that we expect childrens trusts to consider inviting individual GPs, members of the professional executive of the PCT or representation from a practice-based commissioning group to be part of the childrens trust using the flexibilities of section 10(1)(c) of the Children Act 2004 and clause 185(2) of the Bill.
In response to both hon. Ladies, the particular needs of pupils in pupil referral units or short-stay schools are taken into account in the work of the trust, as they should be. We expect that to be happening already.

Maria Miller: The Minister said, We expect that to be already happening. I am sure that there are many things that we expect should be happening, and perhaps in some areas such things are happening, but the Audit Commission report would suggest that implementation of the childrens trust boards has been patchy. Is the Minister happy to say about something as important as pupil referral units that she simply hopes that it happens on the ground?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The hon. Lady jumped in a little precipitatelyI have not finished my remarks on short-stay schools or pupil referral units. We had thought that making them relevant partners would be unnecessary, as they are part of the local authority, not separate legal identities, so the interests of pupils would be represented by the local authority. However, in view of the strength of feeling on the issue, I am pleased to confirm today that we now propose to use regulation-making powers under paragraph 3 of schedule 1 to the Education Act 1996 to apply also to PRUs the requirement on schools to become relevant partners. We consider it more sensible to use that existing power, rather than to list PRUs in the Bill, as it will enable the requirement on PRUs to be modified in a way that reflects their position.
Although I understand the motivation behind amendment 75that membership of the childrens trust will mean that academies and other schools lose their independencewe think that some things are just too important for academies not to be involved in them, and the childrens trust is one of them. The aim is not to fetter the autonomy of academies or to extend the control of the local authority over themfar from it. Making academies relevant partners and members of the childrens trust board gives them a seat at the table as an equal partner when strategic decisions about local childrens services are made. This is an empowering measure, not a disempowering one. Academies can add their voices to local decision making about how resources are used, what services are prioritised and how they are commissioneddecisions that directly affect the support services available to their pupils.
This legislation requires partnership working, but in most cases academies are already working with a range of local partners for the good of their pupils. Because of their location and history, academies are already working with some of the least advantaged children in our communities. By working closely with other partners in the childrens trust, academies and others will be better placed to obtain the right support for their pupils from the right partners at the right time.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole mentioned housing. Of course we recognise the importance of good housing to the well-being of children, young people and their families. We fully support the aim of ensuring that housing is fully plugged into the work of the childrens trust, but we do not necessarily see how we could make such bodies relevant partners. District councils, which have responsibility for housing in two-tier authorities, are already relevant partners of the childrens trust.

Annette Brooke: Part of my constituency is covered by a county council and district councils. I cannot tell hon. Members how difficult it is to secure housing for families with special needs. It takes the intervention of someone such as me to bring the parties together. That desperately needs to be addressed.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I was going to move on to say that district authorities are already relevant partners. However, registered social landlords, which I think the hon. Lady also mentioned, do not need to become statutory relevant partners to become part of the childrens trust. Their inclusion can be negotiated locally. Section 10(1)(c) of the Children Act 2004 already provides the flexibility for them to join the childrens trust, and proposed new section 12A(3) of that Act, inserted by clause 185(2), extends the same flexibility to membership of the childrens trust board.
As the indicative regulations make clear, we intend to say in the new regulations governing the new joint children and young peoples plan that childrens trust boards will need to consult all social housing providers in preparing that plan.
I apologise to the Committee. I misattributed to Caroline Abrahams the quote that I read out saying:
The development of our school and community early-intervention teams. All the agencies put their resources in. It would not have happened without our childrens trust.
The quote was actually from the Audit Commission report. I wanted to put that right on the record.
On the basis of the assurances that I have given the hon. Members for Basingstoke and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and particularly the Governments commitment to introducing secondary legislation in respect of PRUs, I hope that they will be prepared to withdraw or not press all three amendments.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for her response and for giving way a little on at least one of the points that we raised. I am pleased to hear that she understands the strength of feeling behind the argument for including pupil referral units and I look forward to seeing the secondary legislation, although it is a little tiresome that that has not been sorted out before now. It was clear from the initial papers that the Department issued, well in advance of the Bills publication, that pupil referral units should be included and it seems rather late in the day for the Government to be changing their mind now, but I suppose we should be thankful for the change.
I am still not convinced by the Ministers saying that the constituent parts of a childrens centre will be represented on childrens trust boards but not the childrens centre itself. Surely it is the childrens centre management that drives the availability of local services through the childrens centre; and the management need to be there to hear about the long-term planning for local services in order to ensure that those services are made available through the local childrens centre. I do not understand the Ministers logic.
Nevertheless, I understand the problem of trying to galvanise all local GPs to become involved in the local childrens centre. I am sure that most areas, like my constituency, have a management group for GPs, with a lead general practitioner who can easily become involved in the deliberations of the childrens trust board. Again, I believe that the Minister will have further ideas for regulations on how to involve these people. It is important to have the right people at the table if we are to make those bodies work. That is particularly so when it comes to help; we all know of the problem of involving our local health care services in the childrens trust boards.
I did not hear a response from the Minister to my request to clarify what her colleagues in the Department of Health meant when they said in a recent consultation that someone for vulnerable children would be on the childrens trust board. She may want to make it clear now.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. It is our intention that the interests of vulnerable children should be represented by all the partners on the board. I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that they will need to take a partnership approach to such complex problems. When it comes to vulnerable children, we are not dealing only with health.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for making that clear. However, making everyone responsible may mean that no one is responsible. Given that Lord Laming indicated that a regular report should be given to the childrens trust boards on vulnerable children, the Minister may need to clarify further how it is to work. If every member is responsible, it is possible that no one will be driving forward the agenda for vulnerable children. The matter may need a little more thought.
It was the Government who established the academies, and it was the Government who said that their autonomy and freedoms were absolutely vital. And it was the Government who said that we should treat them differently from the start, when they were introduced in Parliament. It is interesting that those important freedoms are now being taken away. I cannot accept the Ministers proposals. Things should be dealt with differently. I am not in a position to withdraw the amendment. I shall probably press it to a Division. I reserve the right to come back to amendment 195 later.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment 211, in clause 184, page 97, line 36, at end insert
(9A) Arrangements under this section shall not diminish the powers of school leaders in fulfilling their responsibilities for the day to day management of their school..
The amendment is designed to ensure that the role of being a relevant partner does not detract from head teachers prime responsibility, which is about managing schools. This point was very well made by one of our witnesses, Daniel Moynihan, from the Harris Federation of south London schools. To remind the Committee of the strength of his argument, he said:
Co-operating with childrens trusts is a very good principle, as long as childrens trusts focus on integrating services and making them available, in an easy way, to individual students. If it takes away the freedom of head teachers to be responsible and accountable for running their schools, that would not be such a good thing.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 44, Q107.]
That is an important point to consider as we look at the remaining clauses in this part of the Bill. Dr. Moynihan said that there were issues that needed clarification. Perhaps the Minister could take the opportunity to tell us how the Bill sets out to ensure that this new requirement on head teachers does not detract from their responsibility in managing schools. This is a point that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole hinted at in her intervention on me just before the break. Those individuals who are running our schools have immense responsibilities already. They have time commitments. They need to be at their schools to ensure that they are running the way that we would expect them to do.
We know from the Audit Commission and other reports that if we are going to have a successful and effective network of childrens trust boards, those who are partners in the proceedings, whether they are head teachers or other individuals, will have to give a considerable personal commitment to ensure that childrens trusts boards operate effectively. How does the Minister intend to ensure that this does not become burdensome for head teachers? Perhaps after hearing the evidence of people like Dr. Moynihan she will be more sympathetic to this amendment.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Thank you, Mr. Chope. I hope that we have all enjoyed some refreshment in our hours break.
I assure the hon. Lady that I understand the concerns of the Association of School and College Leaders and others about the clause. I am grateful for this opportunity to reassure them that childrens trusts are about partnership working and not about surrendering autonomy. A significant number of schools are already actively engaged in their local childrens trust without loss of power to run their own affairs. I do not think that the police, the PCTs or any of the other current relevant partners who have been under a duty to co-operate since 2005 would argue that they have lost autonomy. By bringing schools more formally into the co-operation arrangements, the Government are simply standardising existing good practice.
The duty to co-operate will enable schools to combine forces and work with other childrens trust partners by consent and negotiation to tackle cross-cutting issues and ensure that children and young people in their areas receive the best possible services. Importantly, they will have an equal voice on the childrens trust. Schools will be represented on the childrens trust board and not all schools will need to attend every meeting.
Schools will influence the children and young peoples plan by saying how and what they will contribute to the overall strategy. Yes, the childrens trust board will monitor how effectively schools have been meeting that commitment, but only in respect of the specific individual commitments they have made to the areas of joint activity covered by the plan. Likewise, schools will participate in monitoring and reporting on the compliance of other members on their individual commitments.
Some people have said that we should be more directive and more prescriptive of trust board members, but we have resisted that. We believe that the principle of consent is key to good partnership working. The clause does not introduce any levers to allow childrens trusts to direct how schools should operate. Nor does it remove or take precedence over any of the existing powers or duties of the head teacher or governing body for running and managing the school. I hope this demonstrates that schools have nothing to fear and everything to gain from this new duty, and I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for her reply and for her reassurance. From listening to what she said, the most important element will be the chairmanship of childrens trust boards, because if the partners are to be involved in the parts of proceedings that relate to them and their activities, it will be important that they are well-managed organisations, effectively chaired, and that peoples time is managed in a good way. Hopefully, the Minister will monitor that closely to make sure that schools are not over-burdened in the way that perhaps some are concerned about. With the reassurances that the Minister has given, and as long as she is prepared to keep her eye on the proceedings, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 184 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 185

Childrens Trust Boards

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment 190, in clause 185, page 98, line 31, at end insert
(2A) Childrens Trust Boards must seek and take account of the views of private, voluntary and independent providers of childrens services when planning and commissioning the provision of services..

Joan Humble: With this we may discuss amendment 191, in clause 185, page 99, line 33, at end add
(1A) The establishing authority and their relevant partners must make payments to be made to the Childrens Trust Board on a regular basis, as defined by that Board..

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness, who is not able to be with us at this point, summarised well the Audit Commissions remarks about childrens trust boards when he said that to date they were perhaps well-attended talking shops that are not delivering. They are talking shops because they focus on process rather than improvements in helping children to reach their potential; too many of those who attend the meetings, according to the Audit Commission report, do not have the necessary decision-making powers; and those who can make the decisions choose not to be as involved in the work of childrens trust boards as perhaps they need to be.
I am sure that the Minister is acutely aware that by putting childrens trust boards in their present form on a statutory footing, it will not be a magic panacea for solving the problems. There needs to be real reform, clarity in the role of the bodies and a change in the way that they work to ensure that they are effective, nowhere more so than in the role of the private, voluntary and independent sector.
Amendment 190 seeks to put the involvement of the PVI sector on a more formal footing to recognise the critical role in the commissioning of a range of services, not just early years educational services but far more than that. The amendment has been developed with the help of the National Day Nurseries Association and with comments from the Childrens Services Development Group. It is not something put forward by the official Opposition.
In their comments following the publication of the Bill, the NDNA accepted that PVI providers may not be full statutory partners but asked the Government to underline to childrens trusts the significance of working in partnership with PVI providers who do so much to add value to early years education, particularly in providing specialist support for children with disabilities and special needs. As the Childrens Services Development Group highlighted in their comments, the front-line delivery for measures laid out in children and young peoples plans will often be provided by the PVI sector, whether it is services for children with special needs; residential and foster care; placements for children in the care of the state; extending schools provision, and the list goes on.
While it may not be necessary to place the partnership working with the PVI sector on a statutory footing in the more formal way that we discussed under the earlier clauses, there is a need to consider it and to look at it further. Indeed, many PVI providers would find it difficult to become true partners in the sense set out previously in the Bill because many would have difficulty attending the number of meetings involved in becoming a partner on a childrens trust board. We need to have a clear pointer to childrens trust boards indicating that the PVI sector is absolutely key, particularly when planning for the future, and that is not just for the implementation of plans that have been put forward, but also for plans that have been developed for the future provision of services.
There is a useful provision in section 8 of the Childcare Act 2006 relating to the general functions of local authorities, which are set out in part 1 of that Act, and it promotes a notion that, in securing sufficient early-years provision in education, local authorities should first seek partnerships with existing PVI providers, rather than directly setting up their own maintained provision. Perhaps a similar approach by childrens trust boards would help to recognise the significant role the sector has to play in improving our childrens life chances.
Amendment 191 touches on the issue of pooled funding, and there are clear provisions in the Bill enabling childrens trust boards to improve services by pooling their funding, and that is a move in the right direction that will hopefully overcome the technical accounting problems that some childrens trust boards have experienced to date. If childrens trust boards are to be the success that we all need them to be, surely there must be some surety in those funding streams. I have heard examples of money being pooled, or at least the feeling was that money had been pooled by several organisations, only to find some way down the line that that money was not as forthcoming as had perhaps been agreed. It would be helpful to have a provision in the Bill indicating that a continual stream of funding is a good thing and something that the childrens trust boards should think about. I look forward to the Ministers response because I think that the amendments would add greatly to the way the Bill will work.

Annette Brooke: I would like to comment first on childrens trust boards, which have now been put on a statutory basis. I cannot find a clear definition anywhere in the Bill for their primary function. One reference to childrens trust boards, which was possibly in regulation, mentioned that they relate to improving the well-being of children and young people in that area. With something so vague, it is difficult to measure outcomes. My general question is whether there is a clear definition on their primary function that goes beyond well-being and the five Every Child Matters outcomes so that we really are clear about what they are trying to achieve.
With regard to amendment 190, I recall having a great discussion during the passage of the Children Act 2004 on the role of the voluntary sector. Looking back, I cannot see that that was included. Our discussion at the time was about the voluntary sector not only being consulted within the partnership, informally if not formally, but putting its services into the pool. I cannot seem to relate the discussions we had all those years ago with the Bill before us today. I obviously have sympathy for both amendments, but that is because I cannot see what we discussed previously. It makes a great deal of sense to ensure that the views of voluntary and independent providers are taken into account. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke has pointed out, there is a clear statement within the 2006 Act on the provision of child care, taking on board that important sector.
Looking at amendment 191, I am less certain that it is necessary, given the indicative guidance that the Minister sent us. In fact, the guidance clearly identifies monetary payments, non-monetary resources, pooling of resources and so on.
However, I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is making, that when it comes down to it, money from the health sector must be made available. I am not quite sure how we can put more pressure on so that, for example, speech therapy, which may well be the responsibility of the health sector, is made available, and money for respite care for severely disabled children is made available. That pot of money comes from the health sector as opposed to respite care money more generally, which comes from childrens services. It is important in a host of areas to ensure that the health money is available.
I am slightly doubtful about the amendment, but I certainly agree with what it is trying to do.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: First, a couple of general points. The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that the childrens trust board could be a talking shop, in view of remarks made in the Audit Commission report.

Maria Miller: No, it was not me.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: No, it was the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness, in response to the Audit Commission report. As a result of the changes made by the Bill, there is a definite job for the childrens trust board to do, which is to develop, review and monitor the children and young peoples plans. That will probably mitigate them just being talked about, because there is a definite job to do.
In response to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, well-being is defined in the 2006 Act as relating to
physical and mental health and emotional well-being...protection from harm and neglect...education, training and recreation...the contribution made by them to society...social and economic well-being.
That is also in the Children Act 2004.
On amendment 195, we agree that the private, voluntary and independent sectors should be fully engaged in the strategic planning and commissioning of services by partners represented on the childrens trust board. Their unique insight into what services are needed to improve outcomes, especially for hard-to-reach groups, is essential.
The flexibility to include bodies from those sectors as partners in the children's trust already exists under section 10(1)(c) of the 2004 Act, and this is a power that we reinforce in statutory guidance. Statutory guidance already states that PVI providers must be represented at all levels of the childrens trusts activities. It also urges local authorities to have regard to the views of PVI providers, and local authorities must have a good reason to depart from the guidance.
The supplementary guidance produced to accompany the new provisions in the Bill, which we have shared with the Committee, will emphasise the importance of the involvement of the PVI sectors in the childrens trust board itself. We believe that that is the best way to overcome the practical and legal difficulties inherent in trying to capture the array of private, voluntary and independent providers in primary legislation.
I understand the sentiments behind amendment 191. Local partners have sometimes been reluctant to use their current powers to pool budgets and other resources, often due to uncertainty and a fear of excessive bureaucracy. That is a shame, because where it has been done, it has worked well. For example, pooled resources are often used to support joint commissioning for teenage pregnancy programmes.
The clause aims to simplify the process of pooling funds but without adding the element of compulsion that is proposed by the amendment. We believe that the principle of consent remains key to effective partnership working and to the success of the children's trust. It would also be difficult to force the members of the board to give up part of their budgets to be pooled for shared projects which either did not fit in with their individual duties or responsibilities, or which they had not agreed to participate in. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Basingstoke will withdraw the amendment.

Maria Miller: Again, I thank the Minister for her response. I am glad that she understands the point that I am making with amendment 191, particularly the need to have pooled funding to make childrens trust boards work. She is right that it is difficult to legislate for that but unless we have full funding we will not see the improvement in services that we all want. She seems assured that the provisions in the Bill cut the bureaucracy associated with pooled funding. However, I am not as confident as she is that that will happen. Perhaps, with her words of understanding, I will withdraw my amendment.
As for amendment 190, the Minister has offered some reassurance to the Committee. However, I am not sure how reassuring it is to say that provisions are already available through the Childcare Act 2006 to ensure that the PVI sector is involved. Clearly, the sector has not been as involved as it wants to be. That is why organisations such as the National Day Nurseries Association and the Childrens Services Development Group have come forward and been vocal on this issue. I am less reassured on that matter, and would like to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment 368, in clause 185, page 100, line 40, at end insert
(4A) Regulations under this section must specify that
(a) a children and young peoples plan deal with transport and travel matters;
(b) a Childrens Trust Board consult the relevant local transport authority..
It is possible that paragraph (b) will be picked up in the indicative guidance, but I want to expand on paragraph (a), which is important. This is a probing amendment and is designed to seek assurance from the Government that transport will feature in the children and young peoples plan. It is important to have links with the local transport authority. When we talk about local transport planning, we are referring to public bus, rail travel, community transport, walking or cycling. Transport is an integral part of children and young peoples lives, enabling them to access a range of services, facilities and experiences that will help them to achieve the five Every Child Matters outcomes.
If one asks young people what the biggest issues are that they want to talk about and they want improvements on, it is always public transport. Obviously, children and young people face such a large number of barriers to travel, including safety, cost and availability in my area, accessibility and attitude to those providing the services. Interestingly, we have been talking about school travel and transport for 14 to 19 education and positive activities, so we are looking to ensure that the whole Bill takes that really important approach. Partnership is important, because it involves all aspects of childrens lives and certainly affects all the five outcomes from Every Child Matters.
Importantly, if transport were in the CYPP regulations, there would be a co-ordinated approach to children and young peoples travel and ensure that transport was a primary consideration. By increasing transport charges for young people, local authorities often make decisions quite to the contrary of what is environmentally desirable. It is also important to develop greater partnership-working across childrens services and other relevant local authority functions. The Minister may reply, Well, local authorities have a local transport plan, but I want services joined up, because my experience is that transport thinks quite differently from childrens services. When I pursued inquiries, I was told, Thats transport, but that is not how it should be; services should be integrated.
We should also give children and young people a greater voice in influencing transport planning. They have great ideas about what they want and, if, as a consequence, a local authority and its partners were to come up with some innovative solutions, such as blue bus services from villages and special ticketing, that would be all to the good. So, I hope that the Minister can reassure us that this matter will not be a separate item in the local transport plan, but will be pulled into the children and young peoples plan.

Maria Miller: I support the amendment that the hon. Lady has just discussed. From my experience as a Member for a constituency that covers rural and suburban areas, I know the problems that many young people face when they try to access after-school clubs and extended school services: the lack of an effective transport link can stop children accessing the services that they need. The hon. Lady makes a very powerful point that transport can be a great barrier for young people from a very young age, and I urge the Minister to consider the hon. Ladys comments closely.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The children and young peoples plan will, among other things, set out how the relevant partners will come together to deliver certain joint services to children, young people and their parents. The Government recognise the importance of good transport provision for children and young people to enable them to access such services. I am happy to assure the Committee that the guidance on the production of the plan will make it clear that the childrens trust board should consider transport matters as part of the plans development. Although that is separate from local authorities wider transport duties, such as transport to school, local authorities wider responsibilities in that area should help inform the childrens trust boards consideration of transport matters.
In other areas, some transport strategy is set by the passenger transport authority and implemented by the local passenger transport executive, but we expect the childrens trust board to consult them when preparing the CYPP. We also intend the board to consult children and young people themselves, allowing them to respond on all issues, including transport. If members of a childrens trust board identify transport for children and young people as a shared priority locally, there is nothing stopping them from developing a co-ordinated approach to transport locally, although, again, that would be a matter for local determination.
I hope that on the basis of my assurance that transport will be covered in regulations and guidance, the hon. Lady will be prepared to withdraw her amendment.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her remarks. She has provided a certain amount of reassurance. I notice that children and young peoples plans will have to take the matter into account but will not necessarily have any policy within them. So I ask the Minister to reflect further to see whether anything stronger than just saying the matter will be taken into account could be considered, but at this stage I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment 193, in clause 185, page 101, line 13, at end insert
(c) monitor the implementation of strategies set out in the children and young peoples plan and prepare and publish an annual report about the extent to which strategies result in improved outcomes for children and families,
(d) forward for formal response copies of both reports to relevant partners..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 192, in clause 185, page 101, line 13, at end insert
(4) The Director of the Childrens Services Authority shall be responsible for the implementation of the children and young peoples plan and the cooperation of persons and bodies within the plan, in particular relevant persons or bodies..

Maria Miller: As I said my opening comments on the clause, I am sure that the Minister does not think that simply placing a body such as a childrens trust board on a statutory footing would address all the problems that such organisations have faced over the past few years. However, on examining the detail in the Bill it is difficult to pick out where the changes have been made to ensure that childrens trust boards move forward.
The Minister mentioned the important role of those boards in terms of children and young peoples plans, but I am sure that she has made herself aware of the comments of Lord Laming in his most recent report on children and young peoples plans. I will quote a section from that report, in case Committee members have not had the chance to review it:
it is not clear that the quality of the analyses underpinning current
children and young peoples plans
is of a consistently high level nationally to drive the resourcing of services to meet the needs of all children. Further work should now be done at local, regional and national levels, to improve the quality of data on levels of need amongst children and young people, and local authorities should formally reconsider the adequacy of their budgetary commitment.
So there is some work to do in that area, too. I am sure that the Minister will want to update us, in her response to the two amendments, on how she plans to address Lord Lamings concern about the quality of children and young peoples plans, because producing the plan is only the beginning and not an end in itself.
The Bill does not make a lot of things clear. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is right to say that the objective behind childrens trust boards is not as clear as it might be in the Bill. I would go further than that. The Bill also fails to make it clear that partners not only need to have regard to the children and young peoples plan in exercising their duties, but that they should be monitoring whether those plans are having material effect. Surely, to have real teeth the role of a childrens trust board has to be more than just monitoring whether partners are acting in accordance with the plan. If we are to get to the table the people who really make the decisions, childrens trust boards need to be an integral part of raising standards for childrens services, not just bodies monitoring compliance, which is what they appear to be set up to do in the Bill.
We should be assessing whether the right thing is being done to raise standards for children and ensuring that the role and the work of childrens trust boards is improving young peoples lives. If those boards do not take on that role, I fear that the improvements made will be more limited than they need to be. How will children and young peoples plans be part of a process of continual improvement, rather than something more static, as suggested in the Bill?
Amendment 193 attempts to deal with monitoring effectiveness and accountability by explicitly placing in the Bill a need for childrens trust boards to monitor the way that children and young peoples plans have made a material improvement to childrens lives. It includes a requirement for the boards to issue an annual report detailing the impact of outcomes on children, rather than just monitoring the compliance of the partners. That report will be sent on to relevant partners tohopefullyelicit a formal response. Again, more must be done to try to involve our health partners in focusing on the role of childrens trust boards. If we do not want those boards to be talking shops, as the Minister has made clear she does not, we need to give them an active, not passive, role in this area.
Amendment 192 is designed to give childrens trust boards a powerful ally with a shared ambition, and to try to clarify, perhaps, exactly where the buck stops. It is clear that responsibility for the implementation of children and young peoples plans has to lie with childrens services directors and the members in that area. However, again, that is not clearly expressed in the Bill. The amendment is designed to put that clarity in the Bill. It also picks up on more remarks made in the Laming report on the importance of holding childrens trust boards to account and the need for a clearer, more direct link with local authority childrens services.

Annette Brooke: I certainly support the principles behind amendment 193. We clearly need a monitoring of the outcomes and it would be helpful to define exactly what the monitoring will be. We need to be clear that it will not just be a case of making vague statements that childrens well-being has to improve, because that is not tight enough. We need something specific in this area. I also like the fact that the amendment refers to
improved outcomes for children and families.
That is an important contribution.
I shall say a little more on amendment 192 because, as is evident from the sessions that we had before we started formal scrutiny of the Bill, I am concerned that the changes might mean that we will lose a clear line of accountability. In fact, I asked that very question of Councillor Les Lawrence, who was clear that the statutory body was essential. On accountability, he said that although the ownership was shared across all the public agencies,
I am the elected member in the locality with a statutory duty; that is enshrined in the Children Act 2004. I have no problem in accepting that responsibility.[Official Report, Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 55, Q150.]
That was the thrust of the answers given in that evidence session.
My concern is that the new set-up could mean that we lose such great clarity. I have found reading the indicative guidance interesting, because it asks how the CTB and its members will be accountable for their actions. We are told that there will be a great deal of guidance, and that the CTB will be responsible for producing and monitoring children and young peoples plans. However, the individual members of the CTB will continue to be accountable for delivering their contribution to the overall plan and for fulfilling their own functions. That is interesting because it is hidden in the new notes that we had this week.
In fact, I asked a question of someone in the health sector during the Select Committee last week and I was also given the answer that individual bodies will be accountable for their sections in the plan. It gets tricky when there is more than one partner involved with a particular section of the plan. How are we going to make it clear who is accountable for what when we hope to have close partnership working? How is the responsibility divided up? I look to the Minister for some answers.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: On amendment 193, I assure hon. Members that I fully support the importance of making sure that the childrens trust board holds its individual members to account. However, the Bill as drafted already achieves that. The Bill requires the childrens trust board to prepare, publish, monitor and review a joint children and young peoples plan, but responsibility for the implementation of the strategy set out in the plan continues to lie with the individual partners. Each is responsible for their own role within it and for their individual contribution to the delivery of shared outcomes.
The plan will set out board members strategy for co-operating with each other in order to improve the well-being of children and young people in the local area. The board is already required to monitor and report annually on the extent to which partners are acting in accordance with the plan. If partners fail to honour their commitments to co-operate to improve well-being for children, they will need to explain why to their fellow members. That way, the Bill will ensure that the contribution of individual board members is monitored and challenged, and that results are made public through the annual report on compliance.
Amendment 192 would give the director of childrens services the single, ultimate responsibility for implementing the children and young peoples plan. I appreciate that hon. Members are concerned about ensuring that someone is leading and driving the system, but I am worried that the amendment would work against the improved partnership working that the Bill seeks to deliver. Responsibility for a local areas children and young peoples plan lies with the local authority, so, while the plan may describe joint strategies with other partners, the local authority alone is accountable for its success, and no other partners have to take on any responsibility for agreeing or delivering an integrated strategy for improving childrens well-being.
Although the local authority will retain a key leadership role, and the director of childrens services will be accountable for the establishment of the board itself, the children and young peoples plan will be the shared responsibility of members of the childrens trust board. The board as a whole will be responsible for publishing and revising the plan and for monitoring its members compliance. We hope that greater ownership will increase commitment, but, just to be sure, it will be backed up by the system of peer and public accountability that I have described.
The measures strengthen the childrens trust board and extend responsibility for the children and young peoples plan to the partners, through their membership of the board. Those are important steps forward in genuinely integrating services around the needs of the child. My worry is that amendment 192 would reverse those changes and would be counter-productive. I hope that the hon. Member for Basingstoke will not press her amendments.

Maria Miller: I am minded not to press the amendments at the moment, but I am not sure that the Minister has answered in full the issues raised by me and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. I am rather concerned that the Minister has not really got the point of amendment 193. It sounds as though she still sees the childrens trust board as a way of simply co-ordinating different activities, rather than of trying to drive an improvement in the lives of children in our community. There is a difference between those two things. If we are to have a children and young peoples plan that improves every year, getting better each time a new plan is made, the boards need a broader role in assessing its effectiveness.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I may be able to clarify something for the hon. Lady. She asked about Lamings concerns, to which I did not respond. It is important to point out that the quality and impact of the children and young peoples plan will be monitored through the comprehensive area assessment process. The first CAA reports, which are due in November 2009, will assess childrens services in the round, drawing on the children and young peoples plan, among other evidence. If the CAA highlights any concerns about partnership working, section 20 of the Children Act 2004, which is extended by clause 185(5), provides for inspection of the childrens trust board in more detail.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for covering that point, which I was going to come to. However, improving the quality of children and young peoples plans is only the first step in trying to improve the lives of and outcomes for children in our communities. I remain concerned that the board will be a somewhat passive partner in the process, when what we need in our communities is an active driving force that understands what works, what does not, where we should put our money, and how we should deploy our resources. I am still unsure that that is there, so I need to think about this a little more and consider the Ministers comments in a bit more detail.
I am equally concerned that the individual responsibility aspect of amendment 192 worries the Minister, because the idea of the buck stopping with one individual does not worry me. Again, I need to ponder further her comments about there being shared responsibility throughout the board, because that will make leadership quite difficult. If there are a number of people, who might change over time and who might represent a multitude of different organisations, where will the leadership come from? If things go wrong, who will take responsibility? Those are the sorts of things that our constituents will want to know. I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but I reserve the right to return to the matter at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sharon Hodgson: I do not want to delay the Committee for longI shall take only about three minutesbecause I am aware that we have a long night ahead of us, and what I want to say is a drop in the ocean compared with what is facing us. Some of the amendments to the clause relate to the breadth of consultation that the Government would be required to undertake. I know that whenever changes are made, an inevitable cacophony of voices clamour to be heard, and we have heard some of them tonight. I shall briefly state the case for the voice of local authorities to be recognised, not just as influential partners in delivery, but as democratically accountable elected bodies.
The LGA stated in representations that it welcomes the clear placement of local authorities in the lead on the 16 to 19 learning agenda, and the reiteration of their centrality and planning in commissioning childrens services more widely. The premise must be that they should focus on the complete needs of individual young people so that local authorities and other partners can best support them in the round.
There is concern that clause 185(2) on the functions and procedures of childrens trust boards should require consultation. The Bill sets up complex commissioning arrangements and accountability in relation to several aspects of planning and delivery at which local authorities are at the heart. If they are to fulfil their accountability effectively and ensure that young people receive the best education, training and support, the Bill in its full extent should require explicit liaison and consultation between them, the Secretary of State, Skills Funding, the Young Peoples Learning Agency, and for the avoidance of micromanagement.
The LGA believes that the key areas for consultation should be the functions and procedures of childrens trust boards with any additions to the remits of the Young Peoples Learning Agency or Skills Funding, any commissioning functions with implications for financial criteria, funding formula or place planning, and any performance management or intervention functions, either with regard to local authorities or to those bodies commissioned by local authorities to deliver outcomes for young people. Information should be provided and there should be discussions with the Secretary of State before requesting that a warning notice be issued to a school.
Without such commitments to consultation, there could be considerable scope for unintended consequences, as I am sure the Minister can imagine. In case she cannot, I will highlight one. On performance systems, the ticking of boxes would fail to hold to account or challenge the delivery of key outcomes for young people, and that ties in nicely with what the hon. Member for Basingstoke alluded to. With that in mind, will the Minister address the local government sectors concerns, perhaps through the LGA, and ensure that the Bill provides for proper consultation with local authorities on key issues and, if necessary, to introduce amendments on Report to ensure that such liaison and consultation is a statutory requirement?
I said that I wanted to be brief, and in closing I do not want to suggest that we should provide carte blanche for demands for statutory recognition of the right to consultation. The Minister may agree that local authorities could use their existing links, perhaps with private and independent bodies, to ensure appropriate consultation with those bodies.

Maria Miller: Establishing childrens trust boards as a statutory body is important, and their performance to date merits our discussions to try to ensure that as we move forward they can do a better job. It is disappointing that the Government chose to put important proposals on childrens centres, nursery funding and the early years foundation stage in a Bill that is predominately about other areas of education. It has meant that the debate on those matters has been overshadowed and curtailed. There was not really an opportunity in the evidence sessions to involve a number of witnesses who perhaps would have liked to have contributed on those issues.
In this stand part debate I would like to raise three specific points that we have not covered: the relationship between childrens trust boards and other local strategic organisations; the importance of giving young people a voice in proceedings; and the importance of ensuring the strategic involvement of health in the work of childrens trust boards.
First, taking the issue of how childrens trust boards relate to other local strategic organisations, there was very little in the consultation to clarify the relationship between the boards and the plethora of organisations that appear to operate within a community. Issues around the structure of childrens trusts and local safeguarding boards were detailed in Lord Lamings most recent report, issued in March, particularly the idea that local safeguarding children boards should report to the childrens trust. The Government have said that they will adopt his report in full, and I would like to hear from the Minister today exactly how that measure will affect childrens trust boards.
The Audit Commission noted that cross working among organisations can create complexity, ambiguity and confusion. It particularly focused on problems in the relationship between local strategic partnerships and childrens trust boards, and recommended, in a lot of detail, how the roles could be integrated and made more consistent. Have the Government adopted the proposals? It is not clear from the Bill that that has happened. Should it be made clearer in the Bill, so that there is a clear template of operation for organisations on the ground? Will it be tackled in regulations? Could the Minister bring the Committee up to date on the Governments thinking?
Secondly, involving young people in the development of children and young peoples plans is important. Obviously, this is an opportunity to reiterate importance of consulting young people on the plans when they are developed and the importance of ensuring that those plans are readily available to them when finalised. I and, I am sure, other hon. Members on the Committee have been contacted by organisations such as Participation Works about that. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that that matter will be addressed? If children and young peoples plans are to be more effective, as Lord Lamings report suggested needs to happen, surely the Government need to advocate the explicit involvement of young people.
Finally, it is important to ensure the strategic involvement of health in the work of childrens trust boards. For many of us on the Committee, that issue is the elephant in the room when it comes to childrens trust boards. All of us have experienced, either directly in our constituencies or indirectly, the problems that organisations can have in involving health effectively. Childrens trust boards have had that problem as well. We can have all the organisational plans in the world, but if the most important strategic partnerhealthis not fully supportive, fully engaged and ready to put its money where its mouth is, childrens trust boards will not succeed.
How can the Minister assure us today that health is fully engaged, that the right people will come to the table and that the chief executive of every PCT will see childrens trust boards as something that they should prioritise?

Annette Brooke: I shall be brief and, I hope, not repetitive. The issue is about making childrens trust boards statutory. I have to comment that making something statutory is not necessarily going to improve partnership workingthe will on the ground has to be there. Childrens trusts are the only in option in town because Lord Lamings review, which was a good job considering how little time he had, looked at the existing structure rather than outside it where more necessary change might be needed. As I continually point out, adult social services are outside the loop and need to be more central because they work with families.
On the basis that making childrens trust boards statutory will probably not do any harm, we have to proceed with it. The Audit Commissions report showed very clearly how patchy the situation is with childrens trusts. That situation arose because the trusts did things any way that they liked and never undertook a single model, or even a group of models. Many different ways have been undertaken, and it is now a matter of honing in and spreading best practice that really works. We have been trying to implement that over a long period and, according to the Audit Commission, have not made much progress. What will the Minister do to spread some of the good practice identified by the commissions report? Different authorities have been handling their partnerships in different ways, which is complicated, and those authorities have to face up to actually modelling their own particular structures to make this work. That does not necessarily have to be dictated, but there needs to be leadership to ensure that everything works.
I must also mention health, because it has clearly been the biggest stumbling block. It is uncertain whether it has been holding on to scarce money, and it is a problem because the Government are setting targets for primary care trusts, which, so they tell us, have not had funds to put into the pool, that differ from those set for childrens trusts. I hope that the childrens health strategy will make a difference, and we need to ensure that there is leadership in place to make it work. I also emphasise the need for full participation that involves children and young people in particular, not just articulate groups or a select few; we need to get the views of a cross-section of children and young people.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I will first respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, who talked about consultation in a general way. There was a three-month consultation on the legislative proposals during the summer, and we will of course consult formally on the guidance and regulations in relation to the Bill and ensure that the Local Government Association and others are included in that.
We will return to the issue of warning notices to schools and local education authorities when we come to part 10.

Sharon Hodgson: In case I did not make myself clear, I did not mean the consultation prior to the Bill, but the consultation once the Bill has been through Parliament and become law. In other words, ongoing consultation.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: That is why I am confused. My hon. Friend talked about consultation with local authorities, but they will actually be the driving force of the childrens trust boards because it is the director of childrens services responsibility to set up those boards.

Sharon Hodgson: Will elected members have a position on the boards?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: It will be for local authorities to decide whether they want an elected member on, consulting with or giving advice to their board.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke claims that the Bill concentrates far too much on other aspects of education and that the issue of childrens centres has been sidelined. The Bill is actually, in part, about increasing local ownership and the integration of education and services to children. The devolution of £7 billion of funding to local authorities and the creation of a single point of accountability for all children and young people, from nought to 19, was one measure of that, and what we are doing with childrens trust boards and children and young persons plans is another. To use a word that we heard earlier, there is a coherence to the Bill, even if the hon. Lady does not agree.
We have a duty to make co-operation arrangements to involve childrens well-being and childrens trusts in section 10 of the Children Act 2004. Since then, we have made significant progress in developing the ability of partners to work together. As hon. Members have said, progress overall has been uneven and the provisions in the clause are aimed at rectifying that unevenness.
We want to embed the proven good practice that we have seen around the country into all childrens trusts. Having an effective childrens trust board is important. Many childrens trusts already have that, but the clause reinforces that by placing the childrens trust board on a firmer statutory footing. It also gives the childrens trust board the responsibility for producing, publishing, reviewing and implementinglooking at outcomes of the children and young persons plan.
Current legislation already requires most local areas to have a strategic overarching children and young persons plan that sets out how the partners will improve outcomes. That responsibility currently lies with the local authority alone. We think that placing responsibility for the plan with the board will be a power boost to local partnership working.
There were a few questions about the involvement of children and young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West and the hon. Member for Basingstoke both spoke about that, and we place great value on hearing the views of children and young people about the issues that affect them. The children and young persons plan is currently the responsibility of the local authority. Regulations already require local authorities to consult children and young people when drawing up their plan, and the guidance suggests ways of doing that through youth parliaments and councils, for example, school councils or children in care councils. Those have already proved to be an effective means of communicating the necessity of engaging with children and young people to local areas.
There was a specific question relating to local safeguarding childrens boards, and the recommendations of Lord Laming. As the hon. Member for Basingstoke said, we have accepted Lord Lamings recommendations on that point, but we need further work and consideration, and to have more consultation.
Health is of prime importance and a key issue. That is why the PCT was originally a relevant partner. Increasingly, primary care trusts must work with local authorities to deliver their own priorities. Performance management systems are converging, and they must complete a joint strategic needs assessment. The NHS operating framework 2008-09 specifically identifies child health as a priority. As the hon. Lady said, there is only so much that we can do through legislation, and the proof of this provision will be in how people work together. I am keen for us to use examples of best practice around the country to make childrens trust boards and children and young persons plans work, and to improve outcomes for all children and young people in the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 185 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 186

Arrangements for childrens centres

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment 403, in clause 186, page 102, line 31, at end insert
alongside support for the wider family designed to improve outcomes for children..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 405, in clause 186, page 104, leave out lines 1 and 2.
Amendment 406, in clause 186, page 104, leave out lines 8 to 10.

Maria Miller: This is another important clause. It puts Sure Start childrens centres on a statutory footing. The amendments tabled in my name and those of my hon. Friends seek to strengthen the role of Sure Start childrens centres in supporting families. One of the biggest strengthsalthough in some quarters they would say the biggest weaknessof Sure Start, is that it is different in every community. The concept behind Sure Start childrens centres is that they can grow to meet the needs of each community they serve. Amendment 403 is designed to ensure that they can continue to do that after the Bill progresses through the House, and that they retain the flexibility that we in the Conservative party believe is their lifeblood.
One of the downsides of putting services like Sure Start childrens centres in legislation is that they must be closely defined. What they can do and, by implication, what they cannot do must be set down. In drafting the remit of Sure Start childrens centres, the Minister has been clear about what they must provide and that they must focus on early childhood services, as defined in section 2 of the Childcare Act 2006. Proposed new section 5A(2) defines those who will receive the services as
parents, prospective parents and young children.
That tight definition of users and services was not the starting point for most childrens centres.
Action for Children is concerned that the Bill must ensure that there is a balance between the core offer and responding freely to local needs. To make that point, I will describe one of its useful case studies. The Kates Hill and Sledmere childrens centre is located in a very ethnically diverse community. A number of children there spoke little or no English when they started school and many families were isolated. Action for Children identified that to help the children, it must first help the parents. It launched an early-start English programme for speakers of other languages at the centre to help children and their parents learn English. By combining English with a focus on the children, the course enabled the team to reach families that they would otherwise have found difficult to reach.
Another is example is the Carousel childrens centre, which is run by 4Children. It meets the needs of children in the community effectively. It has developed to include after-school provision and the support of a pupil referral unit. It also undertakes extensive intergenerational work to help the old and the young to learn from each other. That successful childrens centre is leading the way in showing how Sure Start childrens centres must support the wider family if they are to improve the start in life for some of the youngest members of the community.
The examples that I have given show how the wider family approach can help to support the most disadvantaged children. The concern raised by Action for Children and 4Children was also raised in the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education briefing for Committee members, which legitimately identified the need for childrens centres to continue to play an active role in adult learning. NIACE clearly feels that the Bill may preclude that in the future. As we know, helping a child to get the best start in life is not just about the child. It is about the broader family; it is about mum, dad and the siblings. Whether the siblings are teenagers or under-fives, they are just as important in the life of the child. Grandparents also have a critical role.
Flexibility is needed, as the Government said in their guidance on the planning and management of Sure Start. Their own documentation says that no single model will suit all circumstances. However, it is not clear that broader support will be permissible in childrens centres under the Bill. Will the Minister confirm whether the projects I have talked about could fall foul of the tighter definition?
Amendment 403 attempts to redress the balance by enabling local authorities to strengthen the whole family through Sure Start childrens centres. Amendments 405 and 406 relate to provisions on consulting on changes in the way that a Sure Start centre is run or on the closure of a centre. There are barely three pages in the Bill given to enshrining the concept of Sure Start childrens centres into legislation, yet a sizeable part of those pages focuses on the need to consult on changes. Surely, a Sure Start childrens centre that is delivering a bespoke service for a community will have a clear understanding of its community needs based on probably strong data as well as consultation. While members of the community can give us their views, we also need to make sure those views are backed by hard, substantive evidence. The requirement to consult on every significant change to the services delivered, which is clearly defined as every
change in the manner in which, or the location at which
a service is delivered, would put an intolerable burden on to childrens centres, taking management time away from improving front-line services. I would go further and say it could hamper innovation and the ability of childrens centres to respond quickly to the changing needs of the communities in which we all live. The amendments we have put forward would remove the need to consult on operational changes but, importantly, retain the need to consult on any closures.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I understand the sentiment behind amendment 403, the suggestion that Sure Start childrens centres should offer support for the wider family. Many of the sorts of service to which this descriptor could apply, could be and are already being delivered: early childhood services, as the hon. Lady said, defined in section 2 of the Childcare Act 2006, and include social care and health services for parents, carers and parents to be and assistance to parents in seeking work through links to Jobcentre Plus services. These services could include parenting programmes to help parents with their childrens difficult behaviour, drug or alcohol addictions or simply finding work. All of these services should have a beneficial impact on child outcomes and all of them form part of the Sure Start offer in different localities. Half of childrens centres are located in schools and our programme of extended services in schools means that those families using the co-locator facilities also have access to the services for their older children. What we have tried to do in clause 186 in our definition is to provide maximum flexibility, while ensuring that all centres at a minimum provide assistance on accessing early childhood services and activities to engage children and their families. I would like to assure the hon. Lady that the projects she referred to certainly would not be precluded under our legislation. It would be a matter for local centres to decide what they do. Our departmental guidance encourages planners to consult local families before deciding which services to prioritise, which allows considerable flexibility to plan around need and respond flexibly. In our Sure Start childrens centres practice guidance, which we issued in November 2006, there is specific advice to local authorities that they could possibly include training for fathers, mothers and other carers including English as an additional language where relevant, which is the case she spoke of. It is important not to lose sight of the core offer of Sure Start childrens centres, which remains focused on very young children and their parents. It is right to leave the planning and arrangements for delivering services to those closest to the communities they serve. We would not want to force smaller centres with a particular focus on early years provision to extend their services to the detriment of the core. The key is flexibility.
With respect to amendments 405 and 406, we believe that carers and parents have a right to be consulted before significant changes are made to the services offered by their local centre and where those services are offered. In setting up Sure Start childrens centres we have placed a clear emphasis on local consultation before decisions are taken. All the evidence is that delivering services through childrens centres, based on what families with young children have said, works for them both in time and place and has encouraged families to take up services. We now have positive evidence of the benefits to all families living in a Sure Start area and the loss or relocation of any of the services childrens centres offer could be a matter of concern for families. We would not expect local authorities to consult on every changewe agree that that would be disproportionately burdensomebut we would expect them to consult on significant ones. We will consult on the guidance for local authorities on the fulfilment of their obligations, under the Bill, to consult local people. That will provide a further opportunity to explore in more detail how to ensure that this requirement balances the interests of parents and children with the need to ensure operational flexibility for local authorities. I hope that that reassures the hon. Lady and that she will withdraw her amendment.

Maria Miller: I am quite reassured by the Ministers comments on amendment 403, which will have reassured many of the organisations doing such an excellent job in helping to ensure that children in Sure Start centres are the success that we need them to be. I thank her for that and will not pursue the amendment now.
I am still not entirely convinced that the Minister has allayed my fears about amendments 405 and 406. One of the big problems that childrens centres still face concerns their ability to get their services to those who need them mostthose disadvantaged families who tend not to take part in consultations or knock on the door and ask for help. They are the ones whom we have to go out and find. They are not the kind of people who take part in the sort of consultation enshrined in the Bill. I remain deeply concerned that the provisions dealing with consultation on the day-to-day services provided could not only hamper innovation, but mean that childrens services do not do everything necessary to focus on that silent minority who still find it so difficult to get the support needed to give their children the start in life that they deserve. In the interests of time, I shall not press my amendment to a vote, but we might need to return to this matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment 424, in clause 186, page 103, leave out lines 7 to 11.
This probing amendment aims to clarify the purpose of the proposed duties of governing bodies for each childrens centre. The amendment would delete that provision. The reason for the probe is that it is very unclear how governing bodies and advisory boards will co-exist. The Conservatives have tabled an amendment in the next group that approaches this issue from the opposite direction, so I hope that we can deal with them briefly and at the same time.
I am particularly concerned about the requirement on governing bodies, because, as the National Audit Office noted, there are many different models of governance of childrens centre. Some are based on partnership boards, steering groups, school governing bodies, boards of community organisations and so on. The differences reflect the diverse practices of the sectors involved in managing the centres, and I applaud that diversity. To define governing bodies will cause confusion, given that a host of different people run Sure Start childrens centres. We need some clarification.
We also have advisory boards. I can see how they could work very well in local areas, and I am fairly relaxed about them being put on a statutory basis. My one issue is with proposed new section 5C(5)(c), which states that an advisory board must include
parents or prospective parents in the responsible authoritys area.
If an advisory board covers only one or two childrens centres, parents from the locality only should be included. Most constituencies, for instance, have very different communities with different needs, and I would not want advisory boards to be top heavy with those from, perhaps, the more affluent parts of town. We need a good cross-section. I therefore have a concern about that, but the major issue is that surely, if every centre has to have a governing body, will it not undermine the multi-purpose and community-focus nature of the centres? Will the Minister clarify the respective roles, functions, members and lines of accountability of governing bodies versus advisory boards?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: We are pleased that there is a variety of childrens centres available, offering a range of services to local communities. We want to ensure that they all have good governance arrangements in place. At present, advisory boards help to fulfil that requirement, but in the future it may be necessary to introduce governing bodies. It is a reserve power that we will use only if and when the time is right. As we explained in the indicative regulations, we might want, for example, to make regulations about the qualifications of centre managers. Some have argued that all centres should have a qualified teacher; we disagree, but it illustrates why this power could be needed.
Should the need arise to introduce governing bodies for centres, they would have a different role from that of advisory boards. It is likely that they would be a body corporate to which other statutory functions and responsibilities, such as a formal decision-making power, to enable the formal exercise of corporate governance, could be attached. That could not happen with the current advisory boards. If we ever did go down that route, we would expect the governing body to be smaller than the advisory board, with a more executive, less stakeholder representative focus. It would be responsible for taking decisions on the operation of the childrens centre and, in doing so, we would expect them to have regard to the views of users and particularly the advisory board. We envisage there being some common membership between the governing body and the advisory board, which would help effective co-operation between the two.
If we ever decided that governing bodies were desirable, we are absolutely committed to full consultation with all interested parties. The amendment would restrict future flexibility around appropriate governance arrangements for centres and I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for her reply. I made it clear that it was a probing amendment, but, in terms of staffing, I remain concerned at the thought of potentially having a governing body and an advisory board for one childrens centre, which is not such a large entity as a school. I will withdraw the amendment, but the matter needs further reflection. I appreciate that it is a reserve power, but if it were ever used, it could introduce much bureaucracy and finding people to fill the positions in a disadvantaged community would be quite a challenge. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment 401, in clause 186, page 103, leave out lines 12 to 39.
There is a risk of bureaucratic overload at this point in the Bill. We have just looked at the role of childrens trust boards and the problems in understanding how they fit alongside local strategic partnerships and childrens safeguarding boards. The amendment would remove the need to establish yet another bodythe childrens advisory board. As the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said in her remarks on the previous amendment, it seems extraordinary that there would be a requirement to have both governing bodies and advisory boards as well as childrens trust boards, in which there is a strong argument for having a more obvious role for Sure Start childrens centres.
The amendment would remove the need to establish yet another body. That would be good and ensure that we have more of the staff that we need to be engaged in frontline activities rather than having to run these burdensome and bureaucratic organisations. The explanatory note details that the role of the advisory board would be to advise and assist the centre manager, the local authority and its relevant partners to ensure that the centre provides relevant and high-quality services. Surely making Sure Start children centres participants in childrens trust boards would have a similar effect. They would make sure that their services were relevant and of a high quality, and remove another costly layer of bureaucracy. I do not mean costly in terms of money, but in management time by taking people away from the front line.
If the Minister really feels that it is absolutely necessary to have a strict management structure in place, why not make it a sub-committee of the childrens trust boards and then at least it will not just float in the ether with people unsure how it fits into the other plethora of organisations with which they have to deal? If the prime objective is to include parents, that is probably already being achieved by most Sure Start children centres in the way that they organise themselves to involve parents in helping to determine what services are already in place.
Will the hon. Lady assure those of us who are worried about levels of bureaucracy in many areas of government, particularly in the matters that we are discussing, that she has taken heed of our concerns? Will she also take the opportunity to reassure the organisations that I have been talking towe have heard mention of the issue in Committeeabout the schoolification of the language that is used? Talking about governing bodies really starts to make some organisations feel that the Government might want to indelibly link childrens Sure Start centres into schools. I am not sure that that is their intention, but at the moment their use of language is not helping.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: In legislating for childrens centres, the Government are following the approach of putting into statute recognised best practice, building on the development, work and guidance already issued. We are doing so in a flexible way, recognising that, for childrens centres as with many other areas, one size does not fit all. What we propose must be flexible for different circumstances, but we also know that certain approaches are important to the effective running of childrens centres. The creation of advisory boards is one of those areas.
Advisory boards are necessary for two related reasons. First, an effective advisory board provides support and challenge to centre managers. A National Audit Office report found that effective management boards or committees can support the effective delivery of childrens centres and provide focus and direction to give a good service to local children and families. Secondly, advisory boards also provide a voice for the community for users of services, especially parents, but also other interested, local stakeholders. They can also work with parents forums to ascertain the views of parents and users, who have a right to their say on how the childrens centre will operate, but who might not be comfortable in a more formal, corporate governance structure.
Clause 186 also enables more than one childrens centre to be within the remit of a single advisory board and that can be effective for clusters of centres in some areas. I hope that my explanation is sufficient to have reassured the hon. Lady.

Maria Miller: I wish that the Ministers response was sufficient to have reassured me, but she does not understand that, by setting up more and more organisations and structures, she is taking people away from doing what we need them to do, which is to improve the start in life of youngsters and babies. Setting up yet another board, yet another set of meetings for people to attend and yet another set of minutes for people to read for a meeting will do nothing to free up peoples time to do what they need to do. That is indicative of the Governments obsession with trying to micro-manage things and not let people get on with the job that they need to do.
I accept that we are under time pressure and shall not press the amendment, but it is a great shame how the scrutiny of the Bill has been arranged. As a result, we probably do not have the time to look at such elements in detail. Perhaps they are something that the House really does need to return to because, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, it is incomprehensible how all the bureaucratic structures fit together. It is no way to set up a new body.

Annette Brooke: My comments were not quite so harsh on the advisory boards; for example, the National Childrens Bureau feels that it is working very well in their local areas. My main concern is having two layers there.

Maria Miller: I am sorry. I meant that the hon. Lady was picking up on the issue of having two organisations, which could be doing similar things and working in parallel. I will not press the amendment now, but I hope that the Minister will think about the comments that have been made. I know that she shares my hope that what we are doing today will improve the lives that young people have in all our communities, but this is probably not the way to go about it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment 404, in clause 186, page 104, leave out lines 14 to 39 and insert
5E Services available through childrens centres
(1) The management of childrens centres must determine with the local authority and childrens trust boards which services are necessary to strengthen families and improve outcomes for children in the local community.
(2) In meeting their duties under subsection (1), priority must be given to providing services to support the most disadvantaged families.
(3) Relevant partners have a duty to work with childrens centres to assess how the services are best delivered.
(4) Health visitor services must be provided by childrens centres.
(5) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, determine the services to be provided under subsection (4)..

Joan Humble: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 399, in clause 186, page 105, line 13, at end insert
5H Childrens centres: information on costs
The local authority must, on an annual basis, publish in respect of each childrens centre within its area information on
(a) budgets allocated to childrens centres,
(b) administration costs incurred in the operation of childrens centres, and
(c) any other relevant costs associated with the childrens centres..
Amendment 369, in clause 189, page 109, line 7, leave out and quality.
Amendment 527, in clause 189, page 109, line 7, after quality, insert and sustainability.
Amendment 370, in clause 189, page 109, line 9, at end insert
(aa) improving the quality of early childhood services that are provided in their area, and.
Amendment 528, in clause 189, page 109, line 11, at end insert
(c) the desirability of maintaining a range of different types of providers of services including those from the private and voluntary sector..

Maria Miller: One of the most pressing problems that childrens centres face is how to involve the local primary care trust in their work. There is ample evidence to suggest that the most effective way to reach out to the families most in need of support is through medical professionals such as health visitors. Yet the involvement of health in childrens centres is, at best, patchy. More often than not, the involvement of health in a centre would have been a result of the tenacity of individuals, not a corporate commitment from PCTs. I am sure that the Minister is as aware as I am that more precarious arrangements are at risk of breakdown if an individual moves out of their job, and that has to change. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the motivation for including proposed new section 5E was an attempt to force that change in terms of the involvement of health by placing a duty on all relevant partners to consider whether early childhood services should be provided through childrens centres.
I understand the intention of the Bill, but amendment 404 seeks to probe further into the Ministers thinking and achieve the same outcome without childrens centres effectively losing their ability to shape the services that they need in order to meet the needs of their individual local community. As proposed new section 5E is currently worded, any early years service may find its way into a childrens centre, regardless of whether it is a priority service for that community. How effective, and indeed practical, will that be? The amendment would put childrens centres back into the driving seat in managing the services that they provide and put a duty on the relevant partners to work with the childrens centre, rather than the other way round, which is the way it appears in the Bill at the moment. However, I am sure that the Minister will help us understand that better.
Amendment 404 also recognises the importance of giving priority to supporting disadvantaged families. This is something that a number of interested parties have raised an eyebrow about: there is no explicit mention in the Bill of the need to do that. Despite the issues that we have regarding not achieving the outreach to disadvantaged families, I know that it is a priority for the Government, as much as it is for my party.
The remaining part of the amendment serves to pinpoint the pivotal role of health visitors in childrens centres. The Minister will be aware of the Conservatives long-standing policy to reinstate the universal health visitor service through Sure Start. I am pleased, at long last, that as a result of the recommendations in Lord Lamings most recent report, the Secretary of State seems to be coming round to our way of thinking.
Amendment 399 seeks clear information on the true cost of childrens centres to ensure that there is transparency in expenditure, and also to help the third sector organisations that want to bid for managing Sure Start centres and providing services there. Too often, I hear the phrase there is not a level playing field when the third sector bids alongside local authorities to provide services. Having information on the costs of childrens centres on an individual basis will help third sector organisations when they come to it.
Amendment 527 would put a duty on the local authority to consider sustainability as well as quality of services in the childhood sector. That is important because, when we start to look at funding streams for centres into the future, considering the recession, we need to ensure that sustainability is taken into account.
There has been a lamentable decline of health visitor services that must be reversed. We now know that 40 per cent. of health visitors are handling case loads of more than 500 children. Indeed, 20 per cent. are handling case loads of more than 1,000 children. The provisions that we would put in the Bill would help to ensure that health visitors can provide the support and have the effect that we need in our communities.
Finally, amendment 528 promotes the use of private, voluntary and independent providers. There is useful provision in the Childcare Act 2006, to which I believe I have referred before, that requires local authorities not to provide child care services unless they have no alternative. The provisions in the amendment would guard against the duplication of services and help promote the PVI sector. I urge the Minister to consider whether there is a place in the Bill for a similar approach to that taken in the 2006 Act because, all too often, local authorities have taken the view that they should be the managers of centres and the providers of services. They have not really thought more innovatively about how they could involve the third sector. Indeed, only a handful of centres are run by third sector organisations.
I pay tribute to the superb work done by Action for Children, Barnardos, 4Children and a number of other independent organisations, including Lifeline. They run excellent examples of Sure Start childrens centres. They are moving the agenda forward, and we should be doing everything that we can to encourage their excellent work.

Annette Brooke: It is a pleasure to speak to amendments 369 and 370, which were tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West and for Yeovil, and me.
Amendment 404 would replace one set of provisions with another. Although it is hinted at, I still do not see the term outreach work in either set. That point was made by the three people from Action for Children, 4Children and the Family and Parenting Institute who contributed to the Committee. The Bill offers an opportunity to insert the importance of outreach work, which could then be backed up with some guidance. For example, nobody really knows what the qualifications are for an outreach worker. A lot of work needs doing on that. That amendment would be quite useful, because it would enable one to focus on that difficult aspect.
I support the proposal to add sustainability. We have a conundrum: we want to increase the quantity and quality, and we want affordability and sustainability. However, in the early days, a lot of settings were created, probably in the wrong place, as local authorities were set targets to provide so many pre-school places. They went at it in a rush, and the number of places has fallen subsequently, because they have not been located in the right place and perhaps the quality was not there. We must be concerned that money is not wasted in this very large investment process.
Amendments 369 and 370 are about quality. Although the word quality would be left out of proposed new subsection (4A)(a) to the Childcare Act 2006, a far more specific new subsection would be added that is far more specific about
improving the quality of early childhood services that are provided in their area.
During our debates on the 2006 Act, we spent much time talking about quality. We did not decide on anything conclusive, yet it is an important matter: poor-quality child care provision is damaging, particularly for younger children. We spoke of the development of a kitemark, which was taken on board, but I have not heard about the idea in recent years. We need to have some confidence about the quality of provision yet not be totally dependent on inspections.
We need to discuss how local authorities can assess and measure quality, and incorporate a system of continuous quality improvement in early childhood services. The Government must take that on board. The word quality is in the clause, but we need a clear definition of its meaning, as it can mean many things to different people. Previously, we have focused on quality. As we progress and expand provision, it is important to ensure that all-important quality. I await the Ministers response with interest.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I shall speak first to amendment 404, which seeks to replace the duty on local authorities and relevant partners to consider delivering services to a childrens centre with a requirement that childrens centre managers work with the local authority and childrens trust boards to determine which services will be provided. I agree that the sort of conversation implied by that amendmentone that involves centre managersshould take place, but it is not sensible to remove the requirement on local authorities and relevant partners to consider delivering services through childrens centres. It would not be the in the best interests of parents and children, who benefit from joined-up services, or the centres themselves, which may otherwise be overlooked in deliberations about service delivery. The duty in clause 186 on local authorities, primary care trusts and Jobcentre Plus will not marginalise Sure Start childrens centres. I believe that it will ensure that they remain centre stage.
Sure Start childrens centres are already integrated into the operation of the childrens trust, as many of those involved in delivering services in childrens centres will be relevant partners in the childrens trust and represented on the childrens trust board. In regulations, backed by guidance, we will require the childrens trust board to consult the advisory board of each childrens centre in the local area when preparing their children and young peoples plan, thus improving statutory mechanisms; thereby, those providing services on the ground, parents and local communities can contribute to local services planning and provision.
Health services already play and will continue to play an important part in the services that many childrens centres provide. The recently published strategy for children and young peoples health, Healthy lives, brighter futures, made clear the Governments commitment to a strengthened role for health and childrens centres, with a named health visitor linked to each centre. However, we believe that it is right to provide local flexibility, so that the best location of health services can be determined locally, to facilitate access to and maximise the benefits of those services to young children and their parents. Requiring all childrens centres to provide a health visitor service would reduce that.
Amendment 399 would require local authorities to publish details of childrens centre budgets annually and centre by centre, but that would place an enormous bureaucratic burden on local authorities, and it would not achieve the transparency on the costs involved in delivering childrens centre services. Resources for childrens centre services come from several sourcesthe local authority, the NHS and Jobcentre Plus.
If the local authority were to publish only the budget details for which it is accountable, we would see only part of the full expenditure picture. The way in which the resources flow to centres varies should reflect local choices, circumstances and preferences. Some authorities delegate the majority of the childrens centres revenue to the centre itself; others commission services centrally and deploy them across a range of centres; and others tender for a third party to run the centre and its services under contract.
We recognise, however, that there is still much to be done to support centres in achieving value for money and local authorities in putting resources where they can make the most difference for children and families. We have been exploring the feasibility of designing a benchmarking system for similar centres to compare their costs, and we will publish the findings shortly.
I will use this opportunity to respond to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole about outreach. It is not mentioned explicitly in the legislation because it is already provided for in the Childcare Act 2006. Section 3 requires local authorities to identify parents who would not access early childhood services of their own accord and encourage them to use those services.

Annette Brooke: It is an interesting reflection that it is specified in the 2006 Act. In all the evaluations of Sure Start centres, outreach work is one of the weakest aspects. Perhaps we need something on top of the existing legislation.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Or maybe we just need to ensure that the existing legislation is adhered to. That is the outreach activity that we require all childrens centres to undertake.
Amendments 369, 527, 370 and 528 seek to amend the provision that we are building into section 3 of the Childcare Act 2006 through clause 189 to require local authorities to consider the quality, quantity and location of existing services in the area as they make arrangements for integrated early childhood services. On quality, I am sympathetic to the broad thrust of amendments 369 and 370, which I believe are intended to embed a culture of quality improvement in the delivery of early years services.
We share that commitment, but we believe that it is very much within the spirit of the existing legislation. For example, the early years foundation stage helps ensure that whatever setting parents choose, they can be confident that their child will receive a quality experience that supports their learning and development. Our graduate leader fund and early years professional status are driving up work force standards.
We also recognise the extra value and expertise brought to services for children and families by organisations in the private, voluntary and independent sectors. We want to ensure that Sure Start childrens centre services include the best of those. We have been clear all along that in making provision for integrated early learning and child care within Sure Start childrens centres, we do not expect local authorities to set up in competition with existing good-quality provision.
We believe that amendment 527, which requires local authorities to have regard to the sustainability of early childhood services provided in the area, is also unnecessary. Clause 189 makes it explicit that a local authority must have regard to the services already available in the area when deciding arrangements for integrating early childhood services, and it follows that services should be sustainable.
Amendment 528, which would require local authorities to have regard to the desirability of maintaining a range of different types of service, including those from the private and voluntary sector, is also unnecessary. I have explained that we have long recognised the extra value and expertise brought to childrens services by organisations in the private, voluntary and independent sectors. Indeed, we have made it a condition of grant that authorities consider and consult all local child care providers before deciding how child care in childrens centres will be delivered. With that, I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for her thorough answers on the four amendments. I hope that she is right that the PVI sector is not overlooked. She feels that amendment 528 is unnecessary, but the experience on the ground is that there is a culture of not always looking first to the PVI sector. Hopefully those involved in the area will read her remarks and take heed.
I understand the hon. Ladys point that there are provisions in the Bill that should cover sustainability, but I am again thinking of the future. Sustainability needs to be taken into account. Ensuring that the true costs of centres are fully understood is difficult. As she said, the funding streams come from myriad different organisations. That makes it difficult for elected Members to understand the true cost of Sure Start centres, which is something that we should all be thinking about. However, I understand her point that a true cost would not necessarily be provided through the amendment and other streams might be coming through as well.
The Ministers response to amendment 404 was less convincing. I do not think that how the Bill and this provision are structured will do many favours for Sure Start centres. They could be left in the position of having an obligation to take on services that may not be that helpful. The Minister talked about ensuring that Sure Start centres are not overlooked, but there could be an unintended consequence.
I thank the Minister for her reassurances. I shall not press the issues in the amendments, but hope that she will ponder them further, outside the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 186 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 187

Inspection of childrens centres

Maria Miller: I beg to move amendment 400, in clause 187, page 105, line 18, at end insert
98ZA Unified system of inspection
The Chief Inspector must establish one inspection programme to include
(a) childcare provision,
(b) early years learning,
(c) other services provided by childrens centres..
Clause 187 makes an important provision for Ofsted to be able to inspect childrens centres. It already has the ability to inspect the child care and early years teaching elements of childrens centres, but it is not clear from the Bill how the new duty would fit in with existing responsibilities. What was interesting from our evidence sessions was that organisations that run childrens centres have very little information about the new inspection system. The lack of detail in the Bill is not making it easy, coupled with the lack of any information from third parties. It is difficult to understand the Governments intention.
The original planning and performance management guidance, on page 25, said:
by 2008...a new legal framework and a new quality framework for integrated education and childcare for the 0-5 age group
would be established
using the provisions in the Childcare Act 2006.
Is the existing provision, which apparently could already be enacted under the Childcare Act, the same as the Government proposal in clause 187? It is difficult to tell, because of the Bills vagaries. Perhaps the Minister could help the Committee by talking about the work that has been done in advance of the Bill to consult organisations about how the new process would work.
The amendment clarifies that any new inspection system should not add yet another layer of bureaucracy. Ofsted would be required to have a unified system of inspection to lessen the burden on childrens centres without losing the important control of the quality of services. Going back to the witness statements from the evidence sessions, when we have organisations that are running a number of Sure Start childrens centres saying that they have no information on the new inspection regime, I am rather concerned about the Governments thinking. The Minister needs to take a little time this evening to fill the Committee in.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry: I understand that the childrens centres and organisations in the voluntary sector that provide childrens centre services have some concerns about the potential for unco-ordinated inspections. I entirely understand the desire to ensure that childrens centres experience inspection as a joined-up process. That is sensible and is something that we also wish to ensure. There is nothing in the Bill that constrains Ofsteds ability to schedule multiple inspections in a sensible and co-ordinated way, although when doing so it will apply different criteria for individual services. Ofsteds recent publication, Ofsted Inspects: A summary of the framework for all Ofsted inspection and regulation makes clear its commitment to what it refers to as single inspection events and I welcome that clear and helpful statement of intent from Ofsted. I hope that gives the hon. Member for Basingstoke assurance about the conduct of inspections.
I understand that Ofsted will consult on the detail of how it will inspect childrens centres. As one would expect, that consultation will involve a wide range of stakeholders, including private and voluntary sector service providers. Ofsted will also consider how it intends to integrate the scheduling of the services discussed in the amendment and I hope that that reassurance is sufficient for the hon. Lady.

Maria Miller: I thank the Minister for that clarity. Perhaps it would have been useful to have had some of that either discussed with the PVI sector before the Bill was introduced, or to have indicated that in some way to members of the Committee, because that really helped.
The single inspection event will probably address the issue that has been raised. The other issue that we want reassurance from the Minister on is whether there is sufficient expertise in Ofsted to be able to undertake that type of inspection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Joan Humble: We have been sitting now for two hours. I have been informed that the Committees intention is to sit for a considerable time beyond where we are now. I will therefore suspend the Committee until half-past 10.

Sitting suspended.